Law Society Northern Territory v Petersen - [2025] NTSC 34

CITATION:Law Society Northern Territory v Petersen [2025] NTSC 34
PARTIES:LAW SOCIETY NORTHERN TERRITORY

v
PETERSEN, Patricia May

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:2020-01748-SC
DELIVERED:  6 June 2025
HEARING DATES:  24 & 25 March 2025
JUDGMENT OF:  Brownhill J

CATCHWORDS:
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Suitability matters – Applicant for admission – Duty of disclosure –Failure to disclose prior application for admission in another jurisdiction – Failure to disclose prior criminal matters and civil proceeding – Deliberate misrepresentation to admission authority – Deliberate dishonesty - Finding that legal practitioner lacks the capacity to discharge a lawyer’s responsibilities – Revocation of admission order – Removal of legal practitioner’s name from roll
Supreme Court Act 1979 (NT), s 22.
Supreme Court Rules 1987 (NT) -, Rule 95.01.
Legal Profession Act 2006 (NT), s 25, s 28, s 32, s 34, s 554.
Legal Profession Admission Rules 2007 (NT)

Connop v Law Society Northern Territory [2016] NTSC 38;Frugtniet v Board of Examiners [2002] VSC 140; Frugtniet v Board of Examiners [2005] VSC 332; In re Lee [2015] NTSC 22; Heffernan v Law Society Northern Territory [2023] NTCA 10 at [174]; Legal Services Commissioner v Scott [2014] QCA 266; O’Donnell v Reichard [1975] VR 916 at 929; Re Del Castillo (1998) 136 ACTR 1; Re Deo (2005) 16 NTLR 102; Re Gadd [2013] NTSC 13; Re OG (A Lawyer) (2007) 18 VR 164; Re OG [2007] VSC 197; Re Petrolias [2005] 1 Qd R 643; Re Warren [1976] VR 406; Re OG [2007] VSC 197, referred to.

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:TJ Scotter
Respondent:  Self-represented
Solicitors:
Applicant:Law Society Northern Territory
Respondent:  Self-represented
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Bro2505
Number of pages:  113

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Law Society Northern Territory v Petersen [2025] NTSC 34

No. 2020-01748-SC

BETWEEN:

LAW SOCIETY NORTHERN TERRITORY

Applicant

AND:

PATRICIA MAY PETERSEN Respondent

CORAM: BROWNHILL J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 6 June 2025)

The Supreme Court admitted the respondent (‘Petersen’) to the legal profession under s 25 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (NT) (‘Act’) on 11 May 2020.
Some years after her admission, the applicant (‘Society’) became aware of various matters which it said Petersen had failed to disclose in her application for admission in breach of the duty of candour. Those things included that Petersen had been charged with various criminal offences, that Petersen had, as a party, pursued unmeritorious litigation and been ordered to pay indemnity costs, and that Petersen had applied to be admitted to the legal profession in Queensland before making her application in the Northern Territory (‘Territory’).
The Society argued that in the affidavit in support of her Territory application, Petersen had denied having applied for admission in another jurisdiction, which was deliberately dishonest and motivated by a desire to hide the other matters she had not disclosed.
This deliberate dishonesty was argued to require the revocation of Petersen’s admission because the order for admission was obtained by fraud and non-compliance with the rules for admission, which require full and frank disclosure of adverse or potentially adverse matters.
Further, the Society relied on Petersen’s conduct of these proceedings, including that she had filed material which identified the parties, children, and the subject matter of family law disputes, to demonstrate that Petersen lacks the capacity to diligently discharge the responsibilities of the office of a lawyer.
The Society asked the Court to review Petersen’s admission to the legal profession in light of the material it put before the Court, and to consider whether or not Petersen’s admission should be revoked and her name struck from the roll of lawyers.
There is also an issue as to whether Petersen’s identity should be anonymised in these reasons for decision, and whether there should be an indefinite non-publication order in respect of some or all of the evidence received by the Court.
Determination by a single Judge
Section 22(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1979 (NT) provides that, if the Supreme Court Rules 1987 (NT) (‘SCR’) so provide, the Full Court must exercise: (a) the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine a proceeding under the Act; and (b) the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine a proceeding relating to the discipline of a lawyer.
Rule 95.01(1) of the SCR provides that the Full Court will, as a general rule, exercise the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine: (a) a proceeding in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court relating to the discipline of a lawyer; (b) an appeal against a decision of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal; (c) a contested application under the Act for removal of a lawyer’s name from the local roll following foreign regulatory action; and (d) an application for admission as a local lawyer under the Act.
Rule 95.01(2)(b) of the SCR provides that the Court may, despite the general rule, order that a particular matter be heard and determined by a single Judge. Such order may be made by the Full Court or a single Judge in interlocutory proceedings.
The Society’s application does not fall squarely within any one of the kinds of proceedings referred to in r 95.01(1).
To the extent that it does not, s 22(1) of the Supreme Court Act does not require the Full Court to exercise the jurisdiction of the Court in this proceeding.
To the extent that the Society’s application does fall within one of the kinds of proceedings referred to in r 95.01(1) of the SCR, s 22(5)(a) of the Supreme Court Act provides that, although the SCR provide for jurisdiction to be exercised by the Full Court, the Full Court may, if it thinks a particular matter would be more appropriately dealt with by a single Judge, refer the matter for hearing and determination by a single Judge.
Section 22(5)(b) provides that a single Judge may exercise the Full Court’s jurisdiction in any matter of practice or procedure, or deal with any other incidental matter.
On 31 January 2025, the power of the Full Court was exercised, to the extent necessary, by a single Judge of this Court listing the Society’s application for hearing before me. There was a large volume of evidentiary material and findings of fact were required to be made, making this proceeding more appropriately dealt with by a single Judge.

Leave to the Society to make the application and be heard

By the Act, a person may apply to the Supreme Court to be admitted as a local lawyer. A ‘local lawyer’ is a person admitted to the legal profession under the Act.[1] The Supreme Court may, after considering a recommendation of the Admission Board (‘NT Board’) and any representations by the Society, admit a person as a local lawyer if (relevantly) the Court is satisfied the person is eligible for admission to the legal profession and the Court is satisfied the person is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession (s 25(2)). The Court may refuse to consider an application for admission if it is not made in accordance with the admission rules or may refuse to admit the person if they have not complied with the admission rules (s 25(4)). The admission rules are contained in the Legal Profession Admission Rules 2007 (NT) (‘Admission Rules’).
A person admitted under the Act has their name entered on the roll of persons admitted to the legal profession, and that roll is maintained by a Registrar of the Supreme Court (s 27).
A person admitted as a local lawyer under the Act becomes an officer of the Supreme Court (s 28).
The inherent jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court in relation to the control and discipline of local lawyers is not affected by Ch 4 of the Act, which deals with complaints and discipline (s 554 of the Act).
It has been held by this Court that the Court’s power to remove a lawyer’s name from the roll is an aspect of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction in relation to the control and discipline of lawyers, and that the power is an incident of the power to admit.[2]
It follows from the above that this Court has ample power in its inherent jurisdiction to revoke an admission as a local lawyer under the Act if it is discovered after a person is admitted that the order admitting them ought not have been made because the person had not complied with the rules of admission.[3]
The Society has express entitlements under the Act to make representations to the Court and be heard upon an application for admission (ss 25(2), 34(2), (3)).
It must follow that the Society is the appropriate party to:[4]
(a) commence a proceeding in this Court raising issues about whether a person who was admitted as a lawyer by this Court should not have been so admitted, including raising for the Court’s consideration whether the person’s admission should be revoked;
(b)put relevant evidence before the Court, noting that the Society is the only body seized of the relevant information, which has been obtained in the performance of its functions; and
(c)be heard in relation to that evidence as contradictor.
Out of an abundance of caution, the Society sought leave to make this application and be heard. That leave was not resisted and was granted at the hearing.
The onus of proof
None of the authorities referred to above in relation to the revocation of an order of admission addressed the onus of proof.
When the NT Board refers an application for admission to the Court under s 32(1) of the Act, the Court is required to determine whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted. By s 34(2), the Society is entitled to make written submissions and representations to the Court on the hearing of the reference. In that circumstance, the burden is on the applicant to satisfy the Court that they are a fit and proper person to be admitted.[5] That is the logical consequence of the applicant for admission being the moving party for the Court’s order admitting them as a lawyer.
In the present case, the Society has sought orders that the order admitting Petersen be revoked, and her name removed from the roll, on the basis, effectively, that the order should never have been made because Petersen’s application did not comply with the requirements for admission because of her failures to disclose various matters.
As the moving party, and the party seeking to have an order of the Court revoked, it would follow that the Society bears the onus of proof of the ultimate issue in the proceedings, namely whether the Court’s order admitting Petersen should stand.[6]
It would also follow that there is the usual shifting evidentiary onus,[7] such that if the Society establishes a failure to comply with the requirements for admission (here, by a failure to disclose a matter or matters that should have been disclosed), that would prima facie, require the admission order to be revoked, and the evidentiary burden of proof would shift to Petersen to adduce evidence in relation to the ultimate issue, i.e. evidence to establish that the admission order should not be revoked.
These propositions are consistent with the approach taken by the Courts in the authorities referred to above,[8] namely to determine whether there had been some breach of the admission rules in the application for admission and, if that was established, to consider whether to revoke the admission order on the basis of such matters as the nature of the breach, the explanation for the breach, the lawyer’s conduct since admission and since becoming aware of the breach and the effects of revocation upon both the practitioner and practitioners generally.
I consider it appropriate to approach to the onus of proof in the present proceedings in the way described in paragraphs [28] to [29] above.
Duty of candour
The duty of candour was dealt with comprehensively by the Full Court of the Supreme Court in Heffernan v Law Society Northern Territory [2023] NTCA 10, particularly at [59]-[67].
In summary, that duty requires an applicant for admission as a lawyer to comprehensively disclose any matter which may reasonably be taken to bear on an assessment of fitness for legal practice and applies to each of the suitability matters in s 11(1) of the Act (see below). The duty obliges an applicant for admission to disclose any circumstances which might reasonably be considered to bring a person within one of the suitability matters or otherwise to bear or reflect adversely on an assessment of their fitness.
Petersen’s application for admission in the Northern Territory
On 15 April 2020, Petersen filed in the Supreme Court an originating motion[9] (‘15 April originating motion’) seeking admission as a local lawyer.
On 15 April 2020, Petersen also filed in the Supreme Court an affidavit made by her on that date[10] (‘15 April Affidavit’). That affidavit contained the following statement (paragraph [12]):
I have not previously applied for admission to the legal profession under the Act or a ‘corresponding law’ or a previous ‘corresponding law’ or a ‘corresponding foreign law’.
It was not in dispute that the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (‘Q Act’) is a ‘corresponding law’ within the meaning of s 14(1) of the Act.
It was not in dispute that the 15 April originating motion and the 15 April Affidavit were in the form of the pro-forma precedent documents prescribed in the Legal Profession Admission Guidelines and published by the Supreme Court on its website.
On 18 April 2020, Petersen filed in the Supreme Court a ‘supplementary affidavit’ made on that date[11] (‘18 April Affidavit’). That supplementary affidavit provided Petersen’s criminal history check and a certificate of completion of the Northern Territory’s practical legal training program.
Petersen claimed that, on 14 April 2020, she also filed, or attempted to file, in the Supreme Court an originating motion[12] (‘14 April originating motion’) and an affidavit made by her on 14 April 2020[13] (‘14 April Affidavit’). Those documents are referred to further below. For present purposes, I note that the 14 April Affidavit contained the same statement set out in paragraph [35] above.
Petersen’s application for admission in Queensland
On 6 November 2019, Petersen emailed the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (‘Q Board’) of the Queensland Law Society (‘Q Society’) stating that, in 2015 and 2017, she had ‘disclosed’ to the Q Board that: (a) she had Bipolar II and was symptom free; (b) in 2004, she was charged with ‘being in suspicion of stolen goods’ but the charges were dismissed; and (c) in 2017, she was charged with making threats. She said she intended to apply for admission once the latter charge was finalised and sought confirmation that the Q Board had the information she had disclosed.[14]
On 8 November 2019, upon inquiry by the Q Board, Petersen told the Q Board that these ‘disclosures’ had been made by phone to ‘various people from Admissions’.[15]
On 11 November 2019, the Q Board responded saying that when she applied for admission, Petersen would need to make full and frank disclosure in her application of all suitability matters, including mental health issues.[16] On the same date, Petersen responded saying she would ensure all suitability matters were disclosed.[17]
On 3 December 2019, Petersen emailed the Q Board informing that she had been found not guilty of making threats, a charge she had ‘disclosed’ in 2017.[18] The Q Board responded that it had no record of any such disclosure and that Petersen would be required to provide full and frank disclosure of any suitability matters in her application for admission.[19]
On 12 December 2019, Petersen filed in the Supreme Court of Queensland an originating application for admission to the legal profession,[20] a notice of intention to apply for admission to the legal profession,[21] and two statements of eligibility and suitability,[22] one of which was marked for the Q Board only (in accordance with the Q Board’s practice).[23] The admission sitting was to be on 17 February 2020.
The first statement of eligibility and suitability disclosed various actual or potential suitability matters, namely:
(a)Ten driving offences (speeding and such), six of which Petersen said were committed by her then partner whilst driving her car.
(b)In 2008, Petersen was charged with obstructing Police, but found not guilty (‘obstructing Police charge’).
(c)In 2015, Petersen was charged with enabling the erection of election signs, found guilty (‘election signs offence’) and then successfully appealed.
(d)In 2019, Petersen was charged with making threats, but found not guilty (‘making threats charge’).
The second statement of eligibility and suitability (marked for the Q Board only) disclosed various further actual or potential suitability matters, namely:
(a)In 2004, Petersen was diagnosed with, and ‘accepted’ that, she had Bipolar II, for which she takes medication and has psychological and psychiatric treatment.
(b)Under the heading ‘Insolvency’, in 1998, Petersen had an accident, suffered physical injuries and mental health issues and could not pay her bills and, in 2005, Petersen had an accident, suffered a physical injury and exacerbation of her mental health issues and could not pay her bills. The annexed National Personal Insolvency Index documents showed Petersen was bankrupt from 2005 to 2008, and was also bankrupt in 1998.[24]
(c)Eight further driving offences, to which Petersen said her Bipolar II condition was relevant.
(d)In 1996, Petersen was charged with making a false statement and imposing on the Commonwealth in relation to an unpaid tax liability. Petersen stated that the magistrate found ‘no evidence of anything of a criminal nature’. The annexed Australian Federal Police Information for Courts document showed that the court result was a discharge without conviction, a repatriation order and a good behaviour bond.[25] It must follow that Petersen was found guilty of the charges (‘imposing on the Commonwealth offences’).
(e)In 1985, Petersen was charged with unlawfully possessing a motor vehicle and speeding in respect of which Petersen pleaded guilty (‘unlawful possession offences’) notwithstanding that the charge arose because she had asked her then boyfriend to return a hire car for her and he did not do so.
(f)In 2004, Petersen was charged with ‘Goods in custody/Make false statement’, driving an unregistered vehicle and being a resident of New South Wales without obtaining a licence in that State (‘goods in custody charges’), and was ordered by the Court to undergo psychiatric treatment.
Petersen also filed in Queensland a certificate of suitability signed by Steven Wood on 14 December 2019, which indicated Mr Wood’s awareness of: (a) Petersen’s two insolvencies; (b) 18 driving offences; (c) the obstructing Police charge; (d) the making threats charge; (e) the election signs offence, with a successful appeal; (f) the imposing on the Commonwealth offences; (g) the unlawful possession offences; and (h) the goods in custody charges.
Petersen also filed in Queensland a certificate of suitability signed by Stephen Hirst on 14 December 2019, which indicated Dr Hirst’s awareness of: (a) Petersen’s two insolvencies; (b) 18 driving offences; (c) the obstructing Police charge; (d) the making threats charge; (e) the imposing on the Commonwealth offences; (f) the unlawful possession offences; (g) the goods in custody charges; and (h) the election signs offence, followed by a successful appeal.[26]
In cross-examination, Petersen accepted that, on the balance of probabilities, she was the one who inserted these matters into the draft of the certificate signed by Dr Hirst.[27]

Petersen also filed in Queensland a certificate of suitability signed by Carol O’Brien on 16 December 2019, which indicated Ms O’Brien’s awareness of: (a) Petersen’s two insolvencies; (b) 18 driving offences; (c) the obstructing Police charge; (d) the making threats charge; (e) the imposing on the Commonwealth offences; (f) the unlawful possession offences; (g) the goods in custody charges; and (h) the election signs offence, followed by a successful appeal.[28]
Petersen also filed in Queensland a certificate of suitability signed by Graham Priest on 20 December 2019, which indicated Mr Priest’s awareness of: (a) 15 driving offences; (b) the obstructing Police charge; (c) the making threats charge; and (d) the election signs offence, followed by a successful appeal.[29]
In cross-examination, Petersen agreed that she was responsible for the inclusion of these matters into the draft of the certificate signed by Mr Priest.[30]
On 9 January 2020, Petersen filed in Queensland an affidavit made by her on that date disclosing: (a) 10 driving offences; (b) the obstructing Police charge; (c) the election signs offence, followed by a successful appeal; and (d) the making threats charge.[31]
On 9 January 2020, Petersen provided in Queensland a second affidavit made by her on that date which was marked for the Q Board only, disclosing: (a) her diagnosis of Bipolar II in 2004, with ongoing treatment; (b) her bankruptcies in 1995[32] and 2005; (c) eight driving offences; (d) the imposing on the Commonwealth offences, with a finding by the Court of no evidence of anything of a criminal nature; (e) the unlawful possession offences; and (f) the goods in custody charges, with a finding by the Court that there was no evidence of stealing or ‘criminality in [her] personality’.
On 9 January 2020, after an email enquiry by Petersen as to whether all the information was to hand, the Q Board responded saying that after a preliminary review of her application, it would need to be assessed by a senior staff member.[33]
In cross-examination, Petersen initially denied that at this point she knew that her application in Queensland was not a straight-forward one, but then said it was a complicated or complex matter, but she believed that she would be ‘admitted without event’.[34]
On 22 January 2020, the Q Board requested Petersen to provide: (a) all of the documents from the court proceedings mentioned in her material; (b) a copy of the psychiatrist’s report received in the 2004 court proceedings (the goods in custody charges); (c) any court transcripts in respect of sentencing for each offence; (d) a detailed report from Petersen’s treating psychiatrist outlining the history of her condition, its triggers, her medication and counselling regimes, her compliance with them, the frequency of appointments, her level of insight into her condition and treatment; (e) a copy of her bankruptcy documents; and (f) information as to whether the two motor vehicle accidents were subject to compensation claims.[35] The Q Board subsequently requested that the psychiatrist’s report also address Petersen’s PTSD, to which reference had been made in her second statement of eligibility and suitability.[36]
In cross-examination, Petersen denied that, by this point she knew that she was going to need to provide a great deal of material to the Q Board in relation to her application, saying there was very little else she believed that she needed to do.[37] She denied that this email was evidence of the fact the Q Board was not satisfied with the information she had provided to date and wanted more, saying she assumed they asked for further information, not because they were going to object to her admission, but ‘just to understandably be provided a fulsome account of the circumstances under which these events took place’.[38]
On 23 January 2020, Petersen emailed the Manly Local Court seeking court documents in relation to the goods in custody charges.[39]
On 23 January 2020, Petersen provided to the Q Board a copy of the decision of the District Court of Queensland in Petersen v Ipswich City Council [2016] QDC 7, which was her appeal against convictions for three offences of enabling the erection of election signs.[40] In that decision, the Court held (at [37]) that the magistrate had erred in finding that there was evidence on which Petersen could lawfully be convicted of any of the offences. The Court noted (at [38]) that the magistrate did not find Petersen to be a credible witness, but said her evidence did not advance the prosecution case as to proof that Petersen was criminally responsible for erection of the election signs. The appeal was upheld, the convictions and penalties imposed by the Magistrates Court were set aside and substituted by a finding of no case to answer.
On 23 January 2020, the Q Board emailed Petersen seeking documents from the Australian Taxation Office (‘ATO’) as to the imposing on the Commonwealth offences.[41]
On 23 January 2020, Petersen responded saying she does not have any documents relating to the ATO matter.[42]
On 23 January 2020, the Q Board informed Petersen that she would need to request the documents from the ATO as the Q Board ‘expects full and frank disclosure and supporting documentation regarding each issue mentioned’ in her material.[43]
On 23 January 2020, the Q Board emailed Petersen indicating that, given the timing of her appointment with the psychiatrist to obtain the report, there would not be sufficient time for the consideration of that report prior to the sitting on 17 February 2020, and suggesting that Petersen consider adjourning her application to the next sittings, which were scheduled for April 2020.[44]
In cross-examination, Petersen denied that it was at this point she realised that the disclosures she had made were not adequate and that the Q Board required full and frank disclosure and a comprehensive report from a psychiatrist, saying she assumed that she would be ‘admitted without event’.[45] She denied that it was clear to her at this stage that her application was facing formidable difficulties.[46]
On 23 January 2020, Petersen forwarded to the Q Board a consent adjournment application adjourning her application for admission to a date to be fixed.[47]
On 28 January 2020, Petersen emailed the Q Board stating that she had sent by post the signed consent adjournment application and the ‘comprehensive report’ from Dr Kathryn Gow addressing the Q Board’s questions, had asked the ATO for the information, and was ‘now aiming to be [a]dmitted in April’.[48]
On 30 January 2020, the consent adjournment document was signed on behalf of the Q Board.[49]
On 31 January 2020, the Q Board received a report written by Dr Kathryn Gow, Petersen’s treating psychologist.[50]
On 3 February 2020, Petersen emailed the Q Board forwarding the response from the Manly Local Court which indicated that the court papers for the goods in custody charges would require retrieval from the government records repository, for a fee.[51] Petersen stated in the email that, ‘after speaking with friends who were aware of the matter’, it was her understanding that the charges were dismissed.
The Q Board then obtained various media articles referring to Petersen and a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland in Petersen v Nolan [2019] QSC 216 (‘Nolan decision’).[52]
The Nolan decision concerned proceedings commenced by Petersen claiming $6,840,000 damages against Rachel Nolan (‘Nolan’), who was the Australian Labor Party candidate for the seat of Ipswich in the 2012 Queensland election, against whom Petersen ran as an independent. By that proceeding, Petersen (representing herself) claimed the damages for misfeasance in public office or negligence. Nolan sought orders striking out Petersen’s seventh amended statement of claim and seeking judgment against her. Essentially, Petersen claimed that Nolan had caused the Ipswich City Council to seize Petersen’s lawfully erected election signs and fine her for them, thereby intentionally or recklessly, for her own political gain, causing Petersen foreseeable harm in the form of indignity, damage to reputation, loss of liberty, loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity. Petersen also claimed $1 million in punitive or aggravated damages.
The Supreme Court held that Petersen’s pleading did not (at [21]) disclose a cause of action for misfeasance in public office, or (at [24]) that Nolan owed a duty of care to Petersen of the type pleaded, (at [25]) that Petersen’s case did not give rise to tortious liability, (at [26]) that Petersen’s case had no real prospect of succeeding, (at [29], [31]) that Petersen had had seven attempts to formulate a viable statement of claim and it did justice to no one to allow it to be repleaded, and (at [34]) that Petersen’s case was doomed to fail and had such a remote prospect of success that it should never have been brought. The Court struck out Petersen’s statement of claim, awarded judgment for Nolan and ordered Petersen to pay Nolan’s costs on an indemnity basis.
On 2 March 2020, the Q Board emailed Petersen informing her that:[53]
(a)Her application for admission had been reviewed.
(b)She should be aware of her obligation to provide full and frank disclosure of all suitability matters when applying for admission.
(c)There was a number of issues with the information she had provided, which was difficult to understand and not ‘fulsome’.
(d)Numerous matters which had appeared in the media or in litigation were not mentioned or explained in Petersen’s material.
(e)Her affidavit should exhibit all of the supporting evidence which verifies her statements.
(f)There was difficulty reconciling some of the suitability matters in her material, as it was not set out in chronological order.
(g)She should be aware that she is required to outline all suitability matters in her affidavits, and her inclusion of some of those matters in the affidavit for the Q Board only was not appropriate.
In that email, the Q Board asked Petersen if the appointment with her treating psychiatrist had occurred and if she had obtained any further records from the ATO or Queensland Police.
In cross-examination, Petersen denied that at this point it was clear to her that there were serious issues in relation to her application, saying she did not think she had anything to worry about from media articles.[54] She denied that the Q Board was reminding her of her obligation to make disclosure and that it had found matters which had not been disclosed or explained.[55] She maintained that she expected her admission would go through smoothly and she would be admitted given that she had ‘fully disclosed’.[56]
On 2 March 2020, Petersen emailed the Q Board stating she did not know what suitability matters had appeared in the media or in litigation as she had disclosed all suitability issues of which she was aware, she would seek legal advice about this, she had had the appointment with the psychiatrist, and she had not been able to obtain further records from the ATO or Police.[57] She acknowledged the need to put this in an affidavit, which her lawyer would be able to assist her with.
On 12 March 2020, the Q Board emailed Petersen referring to her application for the 6 April 2020 admission and asking for confirmation of advertisement of her application.[58]
On 12 March 2020, Petersen responded stating that she would not ‘be eligible to be [a]dmitted in April’, she was getting expert legal advice to ensure she meets her disclosure obligations, and she was hoping to seek admission at the sittings after April.[59]
In cross-examination, Petersen denied that, at this stage, she was not intending to seek admission in Queensland at the next sittings, but had by then decided to abandon that application and apply for admission in the Territory, saying she had not made up her mind and still had not decided to abandon it.[60] She agreed that she had not advanced that application in five years, which she said was because she had been practicing in the Territory.[61]
It is not in dispute that Petersen did not pursue her Queensland application any further.
Admitted suitability matters
Suitability matters
Section 11 of the Act defines what are referred to in the Act as ‘suitability matters’. They include:
(a)whether the person is currently of good fame and character;
(b)whether the person is or has been an insolvent under administration;
(c)whether the person has been convicted of an offence in Australia and, if so: (i) the nature of the offence; (ii) how long ago the offence was committed; and (iii) the person’s age when the offence was committed;
(d)whether the person is currently subject to an unresolved complaint, investigation, charge or order under the Act or a corresponding law;
(e)whether the person currently has a material inability to engage in legal practice.
By s 15, a reference in the Act to a conviction includes a finding of guilt, whether or not a conviction is recorded.
Rule 18(1) of the Admission Rules provides that an application for admission must disclose if the applicant has been convicted of an offence, other than an excluded offence. Rule 18(2) provides that r 18(1) applies to a conviction even if other persons are prohibited from disclosing the identity of the offender.
The term ‘offence’ includes a tax offence (r 17). The term ‘excluded offence’ means, effectively an offence for which the criminal record is a spent record, an offence under the Traffic Act 1987 (NT) other than an offence for which the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment or a parking offence (r 17).
The term ‘spent record’ has the same meaning as in s 3(1) of the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act 1992 (NT). The definition of ‘spent record’ under that Act includes reference to a quashed conviction and a conviction in respect of which (for adult offenders) 10 years have passed since the date of conviction during which the offender has not been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment (ss 3(1) and 6). Spent convictions can revive (s 10). There are various exclusions of records which would otherwise be a spent record (ss 15, 15A). The application of the provisions of that Act to any particular criminal offending is clearly complicated and may be uncertain.
The Disclosure Guidelines are designed to assist applicants for admission to determine what conduct should be disclosed and the required level of detail.[62] The Disclosure Guidelines state that applicants must state whether any suitability matter applies to them, and must also disclose any other matter that might be relevant to the Board’s decision about whether they are a fit and proper person for admission, including any matter which does or might reflect negatively on the applicant’s honesty, candour, respect for the law or ability to meet professional standards, and to provide a full account of any such matter, including a description of the applicant’s conduct. Examples are given which include involvement in civil litigation, some health conditions, and some conduct not comprising a criminal offence or conduct which was the subject of a criminal charge, even if the charge was not upheld or proceeded with.
It is well recognised in the authorities that charges for criminal offences are relevant to an applicant’s fame and character and should be fully disclosed.[63] Even if a charge has been laid incorrectly, or a person has been acquitted of the charge, the facts which gave rise to the charges may bear on a person’s good fame and character and fitness to practise as a lawyer.[64] Upon disclosure of a charge, an acquittal or withdrawal of a charge is not ignored, but any adverse inference against an applicant because they have been charged but not convicted can rest on a full and proper investigation of the circumstances surrounding the charge and the extent to which it might affect the applicant’s fame and character.[65]
Admitted suitability matters
Despite detailed written submissions to the contrary, in cross-examination, Petersen conceded that she was required to disclose, in her application for admission in the Territory, the following suitability matters or matters which might reasonably bear on the assessment of her suitability:
(a)the various matters she disclosed in the first Queensland statement of eligibility and suitability referred to in paragraph [45] above and the first affidavit referred to in paragraph [53] above, which included the obstructing Police charge, the election signs offence and the making threats charge;[66]
(b)the various matters she disclosed in the second Queensland statement of eligibility and suitability referred to in paragraph [46] above and the second affidavit referred to in paragraph [54] above, which included her Bipolar II diagnosis, the imposing on the Commonwealth offences, the unlawful possession offences and the goods in custody charges;[67]
(c)a copy of the decision of the District Court of Queensland referred to in paragraph [60] above, which mentioned the finding of the Magistrates Court that Petersen was not a particularly credible witness;[68] and
(d)a copy of the Nolan decision.[69]
These matters will be referred to collectively as the ‘admitted suitability matters’.
Petersen’s case was that she had disclosed all of the admitted suitability matters in the 14 April Affidavit, save the Nolan decision, which she had failed to disclose in error.
In explanation of her failure to disclose the Nolan decision, Petersen submitted that, at the time she filed her Territory application, the Disclosure Guidelines did not include reference to involvement in civil litigation or proceedings, and still did not do so on 18 March 2025 when she signed her written submissions. Given that the Disclosure Guidelines uploaded to the Court’s website on 5 November 2024 do contain that reference, Petersen’s submission about the absence of reference to civil litigation or proceedings in the Disclosure Guidelines at the time of her application for admission is given little weight.
On 15 April 2020, had Petersen ‘previously applied for admission’ in Queensland?
In her written submissions, Petersen argued that the statement in paragraph [12] of her 14 April Affidavit and her 15 April Affidavit was not untrue. She said she had never attended an admissions hearing in Queensland, she had filed an originating application and ‘some but not all’ documents relevant to ‘a potential’ admissions hearing in Queensland ‘with a view to potentially applying for Admission in Queensland’, but that originating application was adjourned without her being admitted in Queensland. Consequently, she argued, she had never applied for admission in Queensland.
The originating application Petersen filed in Queensland was titled ‘Originating Application for Admission to the Legal Profession’. It stated: ‘Take notice that the applicant is applying to the Court’ for an order ‘to be admitted to the legal profession’ pursuant to s 34 of the Q Act.
Section 34(1) of the Q Act provided that a person may apply to the Supreme Court to be admitted to the legal profession under this Act. Section 34(2) of the Q Act provided that the application must be made in the approved form and under the admission rules. The originating application stated: ‘This application will be heard by the Court’ at Brisbane on 17 February 2020.
On its face, the originating application was an application for admission to the legal profession under the Q Act.
In her written submissions, Petersen argued that, in the Supreme Court (Admission) Rules 2004 (Qld) (‘Q Rules’), ‘apply for admission’ means attending an admissions hearing or sitting at which the application for admission is made. She emphasised the following words in the Q Rules:
(a)A person may apply for admission to the legal profession at any sittings fixed as an admission sittings of the court (r 10(1)).
(b)A person applying for admission to the legal profession must file the person’s application at least 42 days before the sittings at which the applicant applies for admission (r 11(1)).
(c)The applicant must also file an affidavit of compliance with the Queensland Act and these rules at least 21 days before the sittings at which the applicant applies for admission (r 11(2)).
(d)Before a person applies for admission to the legal profession, the person must arrange for a notice of intention to apply in the approved form to be displayed at the registrar’s office (r 12(1)). The approved form is headed ‘Notice of Intention to Apply for Admission to the Legal Profession’ and states: ‘I ... intend to apply to the Supreme Court at Brisbane on [date of sittings] to be admitted to the legal profession under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld)’.
(e)The notice must be displayed at least 42 days before the sittings at which the person applies for admission (r 12(2)).
(f)The notice must also be published in an approved publication at least 21 days, but not more than 42 days, before the sittings at which the person applies for admission (r 12(3), (4)).
(g)The Q Board must arrange publication on relevant websites of a notice stating how to find out who is applying for admission at upcoming admission sittings and how to make an objection to a person’s admission (r 12A(1)).
(h)At least 42 days before the sittings at which an applicant applies for admission, the applicant must give the Q Board various documents, including ‘a copy of the applicant’s application’ (r 13(2)).
(i)At least 21 days before the sittings at which the applicant applies for admission, the applicant must give the Q Board an affidavit of compliance and pay the prescribed fee (r 13(3)).

I do not accept that the words emphasised above demonstrate that, in Queensland, a person does not apply, and has not applied, for admission to the legal profession unless and until they appear at an admissions hearing at which their application is made. The references to the person’s ‘application’ and to the person as an ‘applicant’ in those Rules clearly deny that construction. So too does s 35(1) of the Q Act, which provides that the Supreme Court must hear and decide each application for admission in the way the Court considers appropriate, and s 35(2), which provides that the Supreme Court may make an order admitting the applicant or may refuse the application.
The above rules do not provide that a person applies for admission at the sittings; they provide that a person applies for admission at the sittings. It is the act of admission that occurs at the sitting, not the act of application. In other words:
(a)before the sittings: the person applies; and
(b)at the sittings: the person does not apply (as they have already done that); rather, their application is heard and decided and they are admitted or not admitted.
As with court proceedings generally, a person seeking an order to be made by the Court must first initiate a proceeding in which they seek some particular relief, and that initiation (i.e. that application) enlivens the Court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine their application for that relief. It would be a nonsense to say that, until the matter is heard and determined by the Court, the person has not commenced the proceeding or applied for the relief. It is equally a nonsense to say that, until the admissions hearing and the Court’s decision to admit or not, the person has not applied for admission.
The purpose of requiring applicants for admission in the Territory to disclose whether they had previously applied for admission to the legal profession and, if applicable, full details of any other application, such as the jurisdiction, when the application was made and the outcome of that application,[70] is obvious. A refusal of an application for admission in another jurisdiction is a matter reasonably likely to bear on suitability matters. So too is an abandonment of an application for admission in another jurisdiction because of an inability to provide all requested information bearing on suitability matters. Petersen’s construction of the words ‘applied for admission’ would capture the first, but not the second. It cannot be accepted.
I therefore find that, on 14 and 15 April 2020, Petersen had previously applied for admission as a legal practitioner under the Q Act, a corresponding law.
Was the statement in paragraph [12] untrue?
It follows, and I find, that what Petersen stated in paragraph [12] of her affidavits was not true, but false. Contrary to what was stated, Petersen had previously applied for admission to the legal profession under a corresponding law.
In cross-examination, Petersen was asked if paragraph [12] of her affidavit was false and she said: ‘No. Well, objectively, it may be, but subjectively, it wasn’t at the time.’[71] Asked if she accepted that the statement was objectively false, she said: ‘I’m not sure ... I accept that the Court may consider it to be ... my background is as a philosopher, so ... perhaps I think differently to other people’.[72] Asked again she said: ‘I have to be honest, I don’t know ... I still don’t know.’[73] She refused to accept that whether a person had applied for admission in another jurisdiction was a material matter, saying it was no more important than any of the other matters in the affidavit.[74] She denied that the statement in paragraph [12] was deliberately false and done dishonestly.[75] She denied that her evidence that she had not made an application for admission was untrue, saying she had not been dishonest, but may have been wrong.[76]
The finding that the statement in paragraph [12] was false is a distinct matter from whether it was deliberately or knowingly false. The first is a question of objective fact; the second is a question about Petersen’s state of mind. Petersen appeared to struggle with that distinction.
On the second day of the hearing, Petersen submitted that her understanding of the admission process was as she had argued in writing until about 15 minutes before she made her closing address, when she spoke to a barrister in Queensland who informed her that her understanding was wrong.[77]
Was the statement in paragraph [12] deliberately untrue?
The parties’ positions
The Society argued that the statement in paragraph [12] was deliberately untrue and a dishonest attempt to conceal the admitted suitability matters that had raised difficulties for her admission in Queensland. That submission was founded, in large part, upon what Petersen had disclosed in her admission application in Queensland, which had been omitted from the 15 April Affidavit. The Society also argued that there was no need to consider whether or not Petersen had filed or attempted to file the 14 April Affidavit because paragraph [12] was repeated in it.
Petersen denied that the statement in paragraph [12] of her 15 April Affidavit was deliberately untrue, arguing essentially that she genuinely believed that she had not applied for admission in Queensland because of her understanding of the admission process.
In cross-examination, Petersen said she accepted she was under an obligation, when she applied for admission in the Territory, to disclose that she had ‘filed documents relevant to a potential application for admission in Queensland’ i.e. ‘ a potential admissions hearing’.[78] Petersen’s position was that she did disclose what she was obliged to disclose because she had filed, or at least attempted to file, the 14 April Affidavit.
Whether or not Petersen made and filed or attempted to file the 14 April Affidavit at that time cannot be avoided. A bare denial, as appears in paragraph [12], that any previous application for admission had been made is one thing; that denial coupled with a disclosure that some but not all documents relevant to an admission hearing had been filed in Queensland is another.
15 April 2020 Affidavit – No disclosure of admitted suitability matters
In paragraph [24] of the 15 April Affidavit,[79] Petersen stated that she had read and understood the Disclosure Guidelines for Applicants for Admission to the Legal Profession and had regard to those Guidelines in the preparation of her affidavit. She stated that she was aware of nine driving offences, including five committed by her former partner whilst driving her car. She stated that:
Other than as is set out above, I am and always have been of good fame and character and am a fit and proper person to be admitted and I have not done or suffered anything likely to reflect adversely on my good fame and character or on whether I am a fit and proper person. I am not aware of any matter or circumstance that might affect my suitability to be admitted as a ‘local lawyer’ and an officer of this Honourable Court.
No mention was made in the 15 April Affidavit of any of the admitted suitability matters, including those which she had disclosed to the Q Board in her Queensland application documents.
Similarly, none of the four certificates as to her good fame and character annexed to the 15 April Affidavit[80] mentioned those admitted suitability matters, and referred only to the nine driving offences referred to in paragraph [24] of the affidavit. That is the case even though two of those certificates were made by the same people (Stephen Hirst and Graham Priest) who had, in respect of the Queensland application, referred to the admitted suitability matters other than the Nolan decision, as set out in paragraphs [47] and [51] above.
Rule 3(2)(c) of the Admission Rules provides that a certificate of good fame and character must acknowledge any matter that might adversely affect the question of whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted. The note to that rule states that, if the applicant for admission has been convicted of an offence, the certificate must specify that the person giving the certificate is aware of the conviction. The Q Admission Rules have a similar requirement, with the approved form requiring the certifier to certify they are either not aware of any matters which may bear adversely on the applicant’s suitability or to set out the matters of which they are aware (r 13(2)(m), (5)).
It is reasonable to infer, and Petersen accepted as much in cross-examination, that she inserted these admitted suitability matters into the certificates signed by Dr Hirst and Mr Priest annexed to the 15 April Affidavit.[81]
These certificates are referred to further below.
18 April 2020 Affidavit – No disclosure of admitted suitability matters

The 18 April Affidavit did not contain any reference to any admitted suitability matter.
Petersen granted certificate and admitted
On 21 April 2020, the NT Board certified it was satisfied that Petersen was eligible and a fit and proper person to be admitted and her application conformed with the requirements of the admission rules.[82]
On 11 May 2020, Petersen was admitted as a local lawyer by the Supreme Court.
The Society became aware of the 14 April Affidavit in 2024
During 2024, after the Society obtained Petersen’s Queensland application for admission from the Q Board, the Society and Petersen had various communications about the disclosures she had made (or not made) in her Territory application.
In an email to the Society sent on 24 April 2024, Petersen confirmed a phone conversation with the Society ‘last week’ in which she stated that she had filed, not two but, three affidavits in support of her Territory application, the third having been filed by her on 14 April 2020.[83]
This conversation was the first time Petersen had told the Society about the 14 April Affidavit.[84] This was the case even though the Society had served on Petersen:
(a)a notice under s 86 of the Act[85] dated 8 June 2023 seeking further information about the making threats charge and the election signs offence which she had referred to in applications for practising certificates;[86]
(b)a notice under s 86 of the Act dated 17 July 2023 seeking a statutory declaration as to her address and a medical report from her treating practitioner in relation to a form of cancer Petersen had said she was suffering from;[87]
(c)a notice under s 86 of the Act dated 4 September 2023 informing Petersen of the Society’s proposal not to issue her with a renewed practising certificate due to non-disclosure issues, which expressly stated that her admission was founded on the 15 April Affidavit and the 18 April Affidavit;[88] and
(d)a notice under s 86 of the Act dated 11 September 2023 informing Petersen of the Society’s knowledge of two unresolved complaints against Petersen made in Queensland, which she had not disclosed to the Society,[89]
and Petersen had made a number of responses, both in writing and by phone (which are referred to in the Society’s notices).
On 28 June 2024, the Society wrote to Petersen noting her statement that she had filed an affidavit on 14 April 2020, and recording that she had been asked to provide a copy of that affidavit but had not done so, causing the Society to reject her assertion that it had been filed.[90]
On 16 October 2024, Petersen wrote to the Society in response to the Society’s concerns that she had failed to disclose in her admission application the election signs offence, the obstructing Police charge and the making threats charge.[91] In that letter, Petersen wrote:
Dr Petersen[92] recalls ‘filing’ an affidavit² on 14 April 2020 which disclosed the ‘three matters’ ...
...
14 April 2020 affidavit
Earlier this year, Dr Petersen contacted the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and requested a copy of an affidavit which she believed was successfully filed on 14 April 2020. The Court advised her that it did not have a copy of the 14 April 2020 affidavit.
Prior to confirmation from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory that it could not locate the information, Dr Petersen was of the erroneous understanding that the Society may have misplaced the 14 April 2020 affidavit. Dr Petersen attempted to successfully file the document during a highly chaotic period of Covid-19. When Dr Petersen was initially notified that the Society did not have information about the ‘three matters’, Dr Petersen mistakenly assumed that the Society had misplaced the missing affidavit and that it would be located.
...
² It is accepted that the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory has confirmed that it cannot locate the 14 April 2020 affidavit. The document appears to have been, unfortunately, unsuccessfully filed.
Petersen’s letter did not provide a copy of the 14 April Affidavit.
After various responses and queries from Petersen about other matters,[93] the Society emailed Petersen on 23 October 2024 confirming that it was seeking a copy of the affidavit she claimed to have filed on 14 April 2020.[94]
On 23 October 2024, Petersen emailed to the Society a copy of the 14 April Affidavit, purportedly made by her before a Justice of the Peace,[95] along with a statutory declaration apparently made by the Justice of the Peace, Traci Genrich, on 21 October 2024 (‘Genrich declaration’).[96]
What did the 14 April Affidavit say?
Unlike the 15 April Affidavit and the 18 April Affidavit, the 14 April Affidavit stated (in the chapeau and on the back sheet) that Petersen resided at ‘1 Sir Norman Brealy Drive Darwin NT 0812’. I take judicial notice of the fact that that is the address of the Mercure Darwin Airport Resort. The 14 April Affidavit and the 18 April Affidavit stated that Petersen resided at an address in Riverview, Queensland.
The content of the 14 April Affidavit and the 15 April Affidavit are identical, save that:
(a)The 14 April Affidavit contained and referred to only two certificates of good fame and character (by Stephen Hirst and Steven Wood), whereas the 15 April Affidavit contained and referred to four (by Carol O’Brien, Steven Wood, Stephen Hirst and Graham Priest). The two certificates in the 14 April Affidavit referred to the admitted suitability matters contained in the 14 April Affidavit. The rest of their content, being testimonial, is otherwise precisely the same as the certificates in the 15 April Affidavit.
(b)The 14 April Affidavit referred to Petersen’s two bankruptcies and stated: ‘I was discharged on both occasions without event’, whereas the 15 April Affidavit stated: ‘I was discharged, without event, on both occasions’, and went on to refer to Petersen’s enquiries of the Australian Financial Security Authority for further documents.
(c)The 14 April Affidavit referred to Petersen ‘today, 14 April 2020’ having confirmed with SAFE NT that she did not have ‘anything’ on her criminal history check, whereas the 15 April Affidavit said this happened ‘[o]n 14 April 2020’.
(d)Unlike the 15 April Affidavit, which simply stated Petersen’s awareness of the nine driving offences, the 14 April Affidavit stated, after the statement about having regard to the Disclosure Guidelines:
It is my understanding that although I am not required to disclose most of the following matters, I wish to do so, separate from my public application, for the purposes of ‘over-disclosing’ suitability issues.
(e)The 14 April Affidavit contained reference to the same four driving offences disclosed in the 15 April Affidavit, but omitted Petersen’s explanation for them contained in the 15 April Affidavit.
(f)The 14 April Affidavit contained an additional driving offence (so six in total) said by Petersen to have been committed by her former partner. The explanation of his responsibility was shorter in the 14 April Affidavit than in the 15 April Affidavit.
(g)The 14 April Affidavit contained references to:
(i) The making threats charge, said to be a threat of reporting a councillor for corruption, and being found not guilty at a trial.
(ii) Petersen being fined in 2012 for displaying election signs and the election signs offence, for which she was found guilty then found not guilty on appeal.
(iii) The obstructing Police charge, said to have been laid after she took photos of Police assaulting a man, and being found not guilty.
(iv) Petersen having committed five further driving offences.
(v) The goods in custody charge, and being found not guilty due to a mental health condition.
(vi) Petersen suffering ‘depression-dependent Bipolar II’ at the time of the goods in custody offences, being ‘definitively diagnosed’ with the condition in 2004 and accepting responsibility for her illness, and being treatment compliant for many years.
(vii) The unlawful possession offences, said to have arisen after her then boyfriend failed to return a hire car, to which she pleaded guilty, with no conviction recorded.
(viii)The imposing on the Commonwealth offences, for which she was discharged without conviction, and ordered to make reparation, in relation to an overpayment of taxation.
(ix)Petersen being overpaid by Centrelink when she was 38 years old, which she repaid, and for which she was not prosecuted.
(x)Petersen being diagnosed with ‘a mild form of depression-dependent Bipolar II’ in 2004, with reference to the underlying trauma and its causes.
(h)The 14 April Affidavit stated Petersen was highly embarrassed by and remorseful for her ‘past inappropriate and reckless conduct caused by her illness’, that she had been treatment compliant and stable for many years and as a consequence she does not have any mental health conditions that affect her fitness to practice law. It stated that:
I understand that many of the matters I am disclosing are ‘spent convictions’, charges, not guilty findings, or other issues which need not be disclosed. However, given my respect for the Admission process and the Court, my commitment to being honest and demonstrating candour, and despite my overwhelmingly extreme embarrassment in writing this Affidavit, I have chosen to ‘over-disclose’.
(i)The 14 April Affidavit stated that a ‘separate, public Affidavit’ would be provided as soon as possible, which would not contain spent convictions, or other issues not required to be disclosed, including the mental health and trauma related issues.
(j)The 14 April Affidavit stated that Petersen had filed some, not all, documents relevant to an admission hearing in Queensland in 2019, which process was not finalised and was adjourned.
(k)The 14 April Affidavit stated that Petersen is applying for admission because she had been offered a voluntary position with the Top End Women’s Legal Service and will be engaging in academic research in the Territory. After her placement with that Service, Petersen hoped to secure a permanent position at a community legal organisation in the Territory as she wanted to legally assist vulnerable Aboriginal people in regional and rural areas of the Territory. The 15 April Affidavit stated that Petersen is applying for admission because she wants to legally assist vulnerable Aboriginal people in regional and rural areas of the Territory and wants to secure a permanent legal position, and will be engaging in academic research in the Territory. It said she had been offered a voluntary position with the Top End Women’s Legal Service and her plan was to work there and then secure a full-time paid position in the Territory whilst continuing to do voluntary work at the Service.
(l)The 14 April Affidavit was made at Brisbane before Traci Genrich, Justice of the Peace, whereas the 15 April Affidavit was made at Sherwood before Senior Constable Rhys Clifford.
No reference is made in the 14 April Affidavit to the Nolan decision.
The 14 April Affidavit was not filed in the Court or received by the Board

The 14 April Affidavit, as provided by Petersen to the Society on 23 October 2024,[97] does not contain any proceeding file number or the seal of the Court or the Court’s stamp on the back sheet showing the date and time it was filed. This indicates, prima facie, that the copy provided by Petersen was not a copy of a filed affidavit.
Petersen deposed that she filed documents on 14 April, 15 April and 18 April 2020 relevant to her application for admission in the Territory.[98] She deposed that she had disclosed the election signs offence, the making threats charge and the obstructing Police charge in the 14 April Affidavit.[99]
Petersen deposed that, on 14 April 2020, she ‘filed the first lot of documents relevant to’ her application for admission in the Territory, being the 14 April originating motion and her ‘primary’ affidavit, i.e. the 14 April Affidavit.[100]
The 14 April originating motion is not actually dated at all.[101] It is in the same form as the 15 April originating motion, save that:
(a)it does not contain the Registry’s stamped proceeding number, instead the proceeding number appears to have been electronically inserted onto that document;
(b)it does not contain the Court’s seal or the filing date and time stamp; and
(c)the address for service on the back sheet is that of the Mercure Darwin Airport Resort, and not the Riverside, Queensland address.
Petersen deposed that the 14 April originating motion and the 14 April Affidavit were separate documents, filed together in the same email.[102]
Petersen deposed that the 15 April Affidavit and the 18 April Affidavit ‘expressly refer to the 14 April ... Affidavit having been filed on 14 April 2020’.[103] The 15 April Affidavit makes no such reference. The 18 April Affidavit does refer to an application for admission and an affidavit filed on 14 April 2020.[104] It does not refer to the application for admission filed on 15 April 2020 or the 15 April Affidavit.
Petersen deposed that her diary entries from 2020 confirm that she completed, signed before a Justice of the Peace and filed the 14 April Affidavit.[105] Those diary entries are as follows:[106]
On 13 April 2020: ‘Find JP’ and ‘Finish affidavit’
On 14 April 2020: ‘See JP’ at 11am and ‘File’”
On 15 April 2020: ‘Finish 2^nd Affidavit’, ‘Find JP’ and ‘File’
Petersen deposed that she believed the 14 April Affidavit ‘may have been received by the Court’;[107] that she initially considered that she filed the 14 April Affidavit and that it was not successfully received by the Court;[108] that she believed that the 14 April Affidavit ‘may have been successfully received by the Court’, but not added to ‘the publicly available’[109] admission court file.[110] Petersen further deposed that she believed the Court ‘may [have] had an opportunity to consider’ the 14 April Affidavit, but accepted the possibility that the Court did not have that opportunity;[111] that she believed that the Court considered the 14 April Affidavit, but there was a possibility that the Court ‘may not have considered’ it at the time of her admission;[112] that she believed the Court may have had the opportunity to consider and did consider the 14 April affidavit, but it was not placed on her ‘publicly available court file’.[113] Petersen further deposed that the 14 April Affidavit may not have been emailed to the Registry and, if not, may have possibly been emailed to ‘a different section of the Court’ and not added to the court file.[114] She deposed that it is possible that she did file the 14 April Affidavit, but the references to sexual abuse or sexual assault may have resulted in an automatic rejection of the material.[115] In addition, she deposed that in 2024, the Court confirmed to her that it only had the 15 April Affidavit and the 18 April Affidavit on file, so she ‘re-filed’ the originating motion ‘dated’ 14 April 2020, which was not accepted for filing by the Registry because the Registry had ‘adopted’ the 15 April originating motion as ‘the’ originating motion, and the 14 April Affidavit so it was on the court file.[116] By way of explanation, Petersen deposed that on 14 April 2020, the front counter of the Court Registry was closed due to Covid-19, the 14 April originating motion and the 14 April Affidavit were scanned as PDF documents and electronically filed at Officeworks;[117] that it was ‘chaotic’ at Officeworks due to Covid-19 and it is possible that the 14 April Affidavit was sent from Officeworks to an incorrect email address;[118] that she believed the 14 April Affidavit was successfully sent to the Court, but it is possible that she emailed it to an incorrect address.[119] She deposed that she believed the NT Board ‘probably had an opportunity to consider’ the 14 April Affidavit; that she filed three affidavits, being the 14 April Affidavit, the 15 April Affidavit and the 18 April Affidavit;[120] that it is likely that the NT Board considered those three affidavits;[121] and that it is her belief that the NT Board did consider the 14 April Affidavit ‘and used its discretion to ensure that the material in it remained confidential and was not publicly available’.[122]
In cross-examination, Petersen said that all she knows is that she emailed the 14 April Affidavit to the Court on 14 April 2020 with the intention that the NT Board would see it, but that it would not become a ‘public document’ and would not be on ‘the publicly available court file’.[123]
Petersen submitted in writing that she had disclosed or at least attempted to disclose the admitted suitability matters because they were contained in the 14 April Affidavit, which she had emailed to the Court, but which was never placed ‘on the publicly available court file (which appears likely)’ because she asked that it remain confidential. She also submitted that the absence of the 14 April Affidavit from ‘the publicly available court file’ does not prove that its contents were never considered by the NT Board or the Court prior to her admission. She also submitted that, due to filters screening emails or an overload of the Court’s system, it is possible that the 14 April Affidavit was not received by the Court. There was no evidence of any of these matters.
The Court’s file management system does not maintain multiple court files for a proceeding, one of which is ‘publicly available’ and the other of which is not. The Registry creates one file for a proceeding commenced by originating motion, in which it places all filed documents for that proceeding. The inspection of court files by members of the general public is regulated by Practice Direction No 13 of 2001 – Public access to civil jurisdiction court files. Petersen’s evidence in relation to these matters is simply wrong.
The 14 April Affidavit was not, prior to Petersen filing it on 15 November 2024, contained on any court file or otherwise recorded as having been filed in the Court. The Registry has no record of receiving an email from Petersen forwarding the 14 April Affidavit.
There was email correspondence between the Registry and Petersen in relation to the form and content of the 15 April Affidavit.[124] On 17 April 2020, the Registrar emailed Petersen referring to the 15 April Affidavit and informing her that the Chairperson of the NT Board had noted various matters in relation to annexures B1, E, J and paragraph [11]. The content of those annexures and paragraph is no different in the 14 April Affidavit. If the 14 April Affidavit had been filed, it is reasonable to expect that these issues would also have been raised by the Registrar on behalf of the Chairperson of the NT Board in respect of it.
Furthermore, if the 14 April Affidavit had been filed, it would have been received by the NT Board, and if so, there is no doubt that the NT Board would have requested information and documentation from Petersen relating to the admitted suitability matters, just as the Q Board had done. The NT Board’s failure to do so confirms the fact that the NT Board did not receive or consider the 14 April Affidavit.
These matters establish that the 14 April Affidavit was not filed in the Court, or considered by the NT Board, prior to Petersen’s admission.
Did Petersen attempt to file the 14 April Affidavit on 14 April 2020?
Petersen gave direct and unequivocal evidence that she did attempt to file the 14 April Affidavit on 14 April 2020.
To make a finding about whether she did so one way or the other requires an assessment of Petersen’s evidence and her credibility, measured against the other evidence before the Court. To conclude that she has lied about doing so in affidavits and in oral evidence in this Court is a very serious matter, rendering her liable to prosecution for a criminal offence such as perjury.
In such circumstances, before making such a finding, I am required to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, in accordance with the test in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336. In that case, Rich J held (at 350):
In a serious matter like a charge of adultery the satisfaction of a just and prudent mind cannot be produced by slender and exiguous proofs or circumstances pointing with a wavering finger to an affirmative conclusion. The nature of the allegations requires as a matter of common sense and worldly wisdom the careful weighing of testimony, the close examination of facts proved as a basis of inference and a comfortable satisfaction that the tribunal has reached both a correct and just conclusion.
In that case, Dixon J held (at 361-363):
Except upon criminal issues to be proved by the prosecution, it is enough that the affirmative of an allegation is made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters ‘reasonable satisfaction’ should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.
...
It is often said that such an issue as fraud must be proved ‘clearly’, ‘unequivocally’, ‘strictly’ or ‘with certainty’. ... This does not mean that some standard of persuasion is fixed intermediate between the satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt required upon criminal inquest and the reasonable satisfaction which in a civil issue may, not must, be based on a preponderance of probability. It means that the nature of the issue necessarily affects the process by which reasonable satisfaction is attained.
In Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) ALJR 170, Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ held (at 170 -171)
The ordinary standard of proof required of a party who bears the onus in civil litigation in this country is proof on the balance of probabilities. That remains so even where the matter to be proved involves criminal conduct or fraud. On the other hand, the strength of the evidence necessary to establish a fact or facts on the balance of probabilities may vary according to the nature of what it is sought to prove. Thus, authoritative statements have often been made to the effect that clear or cogent or strict proof is necessary ‘where so serious a matter as fraud is to be found’. Statements to that effect should not, however, be understood as directed to the standard of proof. Rather, they should be understood as merely reflecting a conventional perception that members of our society do not ordinarily engage in fraudulent or criminal conduct and a judicial approach that a court should not lightly make a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, a party to civil litigation has been guilty of such conduct.
I bear these matters in mind in addressing various aspects of the evidence related to this issue below. Before doing so, I will record my observations of Petersen’s demeanour and the manner in which she gave evidence.
Petersen’s demeanour
In the witness box, Petersen’s demeanour was confident and, at various times, pedantic or argumentative. She often responded to questions or to instructions from me before they were completed. In other words, she did not listen carefully to the question or to instructions, but spoke with the assumption that she knew what was coming. She often gave answers which were not responsive to the questions, and which were long-winded, self-serving statements. She was often not prepared to make concessions, or did so over-cautiously with numerous qualifications. She sometimes changed her evidence mid-way through her answer, or re-visited a question to give a fuller or different answer. She also struck me at times as speaking without thinking, and giving more information than was required or relevant. She was also, at times, prone to hyperbole or exaggeration. On a number of occasions, she gave evidence that she was aware of something or held a belief about something because she had been told by others about it, including that she had received legal advice about it, notwithstanding a warning from me that giving such evidence might waive her client legal privilege in relation to that advice. She did not appear to appreciate that some of her evidence was implausible or difficult to accept. Overall, she did not strike me as a credible witness.
Two originating motions and two affidavits – no public/private court files
There was no need to file, on consecutive days, two originating motions and two affidavits in support of a single application for admission. Nor was there a need to repeat, almost identically, much of the content of the 14 April Affidavit in the 15 April Affidavit.
Petersen’s explanation that one was for the ‘publicly available court file’ and the other was for confidential material cannot be accepted, for a number of reasons.
First, her position does not explain why two originating motions would be necessary and there was nothing on the face of the 14 April originating motion to indicate any desire for it to be ‘private’ or ‘confidential’. Second, her position does not explain the repetition in the affidavits. Third, her position did not accord with ordinary court process in that the Court does not maintain separate court files for a proceeding.
Fourth, if there was a desire to separate public and confidential information, the rational approach would have been to file an originating motion commencing the admission proceeding with a ‘public’ affidavit, followed by a confidential supplementary affidavit. That was essentially the approach Peterson took in her Queensland application, with one statement of eligibility and suitability and one affidavit for the Court and one statement and one affidavit marked for the Q Board only, which contained the confidential information. There is no explanation for why Petersen would, some five months later, take this very different approach.
Fifth, and importantly, in her Queensland application, Petersen disclosed the obstructing Police charge, the election signs offence and the making threats charge in her ‘public’ documents, not the ‘private’ ones. However, in her Territory application, Petersen did not include those matters in the 15 April Affidavit, claiming she included them in the ‘private’ 14 April Affidavit. There is nothing about those matters which would require them to be kept confidential (i.e. no asserted link between them and Petersen’s mental health issues).
For these reasons, I reject Petersen’s evidence that she filed the 15 April Affidavit for the ‘public court file’ and made the 14 April Affidavit in order to disclose the ‘private’ admitted suitability matters.
Two different residential addresses
The two sets of documents, filed on consecutive days, have different addresses on them, one in the Territory (a hotel) and one in Queensland.
In cross-examination, Petersen sought to explain the two different addresses by saying that she had started working on the 14 April Affidavit ‘well before admission’ when she had assumed she would be staying at the Darwin address, whereas the 15 April Affidavit was done in a hurry and drafted on that day, when she was then staying at the Riverview address.[125] She denied that the addresses were different because the 14 April Affidavit was not made on 14 April 2020, but sometime after.[126]
Her explanation does not make sense, noting that the 15 April Affidavit contains almost precisely the same text as the 14 April Affidavit, but without the various disclosures. The proposition that Petersen was ‘working on’ or drafting two different documents is difficult to accept, when the 15 April Affidavit could have easily been created, in very large part, by simply deleting material in the 14 April Affidavit.
The two different addresses on the two sets of documents are therefore unexplained. It makes no sense for the 14 April originating motion and the 14 April Affidavit to have a Darwin address (a hotel), and the 15 April originating motion and the 15 April Affidavit to have the Brisbane address, particularly when, according to Petersen, she emailed the 14 April documents from Brisbane.
The Officeworks evidence
Petersen’s evidence about having emailed the 14 April Affidavit from Officeworks is set out above.
There is no contemporaneous document to support the proposition that the 14 April Affidavit was sent, or attempted to be sent, by Petersen from Officeworks.
Petersen has not provided a copy of the email she claims was sent from Officeworks to the Court on 14 April 2020. She submitted in writing (with no evidentiary foundation) that she had returned to Officeworks in Brisbane ‘recently’, requested a copy of the email sent from Officeworks and was told all emails are deleted within three days of sending them.
If Petersen had sent this important email from that facility, one would expect her to have obtained, at the time she sent it, some documentary confirmation of this course. Petersen, apparently, did not do that. As set out above, her evidence was that Officeworks was, due to Covid-19, ‘chaotic’. That word implies there were many people present and no rules or organisation in what was happening. It is implausible and not corroborated by any independent evidence that, during a period when people in Queensland had been directed not to leave their principal place of residence except for essential needs,[127] and when non-essential business activity had been prohibited,[128] Officeworks would be ‘chaotic’.
In cross-examination, Petersen agreed she had not produced a receipt from Officeworks.[129] Asked about any bank or credit card statement showing the relevant payment to Officeworks, she said she did not pay Officeworks because they have self-help scanners, she goes there all the time to scan her documents ‘and they kindly allow me to send material from Officeworks’.[130] She said the email to the Court was ‘sent from the Officeworks account’.[131] It is implausible that a business entity like Officeworks would provide such services for free.
There is no evidence from any staff member of Officeworks about any email services provided by Officeworks either generally to the public, or to Petersen specifically. There is no evidence to sustain Petersen’s submission that Officeworks’ practice is to delete emails sent from its computers after three days. In cross-examination, Petersen went so far as to say that she had hired ‘a tech expert’ to try and find out how these documents did not arrive, he had gone to Officeworks and asked questions about this, and ‘the court received a very strange email from someone testing to see whether there were filters on the Supreme Court email address’.[132] Again, there is no evidence of any of this in the seven affidavits comprising hundreds of pages filed by Petersen in these proceedings.
Emails to the Court from her own address on 15 April 2020

As set out above, despite all of that, at the hearing, Petersen indicated she was content to give evidence in open court, save in respect of ‘sensitive matters’. She gave all of her evidence in open court.
Non-publication orders
Section 57(1) of the Evidence Act permits the Court to make an order forbidding the publication of any evidence, or any report or account of any of the evidence, either absolutely or subject to conditions as the Court approves, or forbidding the publication of the name of any party or witness. The Court’s power to make such orders may be exercised (relevantly) where it appears to the Court that, for the furtherance of, or otherwise in the interests of, the administration of justice, it is desirable to prohibit publication of the name of any party or witness in the proceeding.
The evidence sought to be suppressed
Petersen’s written submissions relied on the ‘highly sensitive’ material contained in her own affidavits, the Genrich declaration (particularly Ms Genrich’s residential address) and the five affidavits by former clients and/or in response to the Queensland complaints in support of a permanent suppression order in relation to, essentially, all documents (evidence and submissions) filed by both parties in this proceeding.[218]
Petersen’s application was for a ‘blanket’ suppression order, extending beyond that which was necessary, even indirectly, to protect the ‘highly sensitive’ material she relied on. So much is evidenced by the fact that her application extended to a suppression order in respect of the originating motion filed by her on 15 April 2020.[219]
The Society accepted that three affidavits by or about parties to FLA proceedings,[220] the 2^nd Petersen Affidavit, the 6^th Petersen Affidavit, and an affidavit made and filed by Petersen on 4 January 2025 (not contained in the Court Book) as well as the 10 notices to admit, should be the subject of a permanent suppression order.
I agree that those affidavits should be the subject of a non-publication order, on the bases that they identify parties to FLA proceedings and contain personal and confidential details about those people and those proceedings.
For the same reasons, I consider that the 3^rd Petersen Affidavit should be the subject of a non-publication order.
For the same reasons, I consider that the affidavit by another former client of Petersen in relation to, amongst other things, family law matters, and its content should also be the subject of a non-publication order.[221]
The other affidavit by a former client of Petersen concerns an ongoing investigation, evidence given in confidence and a pending trial for a serious criminal charge.[222] Given those matters, I consider it to be desirable, in the interests of justice, for that affidavit to be the subject of a non-publication order.
Given the volume of the material filed in the Court, I will also make a non-publication order in relation to the names of the deponents of the five affidavits just referred to.
I also agree with the Society that the 10 notices to admit should be the subject of a non-publication order because of the numerous irrelevant, often serious and/or bizarre, allegations made about named people.
As regards the Genrich declaration, it was not received into evidence in these proceedings. By virtue of that fact, pursuant to Practice Direction 13 of 2001, it is not available for search by the general public. A non-publication order in relation to it is strictly unnecessary. Nevertheless, I am prepared to make a non-publication order in relation to Ms Genrich’s residential address, as it appears on that document.
Anonymisation of these reasons for decision
Petersen sought an order under s 57 of the Evidence Act forbidding the publication of her name in association with these proceedings. She asked that these reasons for decision be ‘anonymised’ by the adoption of a pseudonym.
Amongst other things, Petersen relied on a letter written by her treating psychologist on 1 December 2024[223] in which he stated he was concerned that the public proceedings and publication ‘may be the precipitant to a recurrent episode of PTSD and/or bipolar related depressive episode’. This opinion was founded upon Petersen’s experience in 2012 of being severely ‘trolled’ and bullied in social media and online, which led, on Petersen’s report, to the onset of a severe depressive episode. Petersen argued that, given her experience in this proceeding, she would disclose these reasons for decision in any applications she makes in the future for work in a relevant field, including as a family law mediator.
The Society opposed Petersen’s application on the bases that: (a) the Society has statutory obligations under the Act to notify other regulatory bodies of proceedings such as these; (b) there is a broader and protective interest in the general public being aware of proceedings such as these; (c) Petersen had relied on her mental health conditions to explain both her conduct in committing some of the admitted suitability matters and her failure to disclose them and/or check that the Court had received the 14 April Affidavit; and (d) the letter from the psychologist was not a sufficient evidentiary basis for the making of the non-publication order.
At the commencement of the hearing, after hearing the parties’ arguments, I made an order prohibiting the publication of Petersen’s name, save in the exercise of statutory obligations on the part of regulatory authorities.
At the close of the Society’s submissions in the hearing, the Society applied for that order to be revisited if the Court accepted the Society’s position that Petersen had been deliberately dishonest in her application for admission. The bases for that submission were, effectively, that: (a) Petersen’s dishonesty meant the Court could have no assurance that she would disclose these reasons for decision to any relevant future employer; and (b) these reasons for decision should not be anonymised in order to dissuade other applicants for admission from the perception that, if they are found to have been dishonest in their application, their dishonesty will be hidden from public scrutiny and kept a secret.
Given my findings about Petersen’s deliberately dishonest conduct, I agree with the Society’s submissions. Applicants for admission as a lawyer must be honest and completely candid in their applications. As the Queensland Court of Appeal observed in Scott, it is critical that all practitioners understand that the burden of full and frank disclosure is extremely onerous and must be met in full and with all necessary particulars, regardless of an individual applicant’s circumstances.[224] Giving anonymity to an applicant who was deliberately dishonest in their application and in their dealings with the Court would do nothing to ensure that all practitioners understand what is required, and is likely to be seen to tolerate, indeed to encourage, dishonesty or something less than full and frank disclosure.
Disposition
For the reasons set out above, I make the following orders:
1.The order made by the Court on 11 May 2020 admitting Petersen as a lawyer under s 25 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (NT) is revoked.
2.Petersen’s name is to be struck from the roll of persons admitted to the legal profession maintained under s 27 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (NT).
3.The non-publication orders made by the Court on 5 December 2024 and 24 March 2025 are revoked.
4.Pursuant to s 57 of the Evidence Act 1939 (NT), publication of the following evidence, and of any report or account of that evidence is forbidden:
(a)   the affidavit made on 31 December 2024 and filed on 31 December 2024 and 18 January 2025 contained at pages 1413-1417 of the Court Book;
(b)   the affidavit made on 2 January 2025 and filed on 3 and 18 January 2025 contained at pages 1410-1412 of the Court Book;
(c)   the affidavit made on 3 January 2025 and filed on 3 and 20 January 2025 contained at pages 1422-1425 of the Court Book;
(d)   the affidavit made on 3 January 2025 and filed on 3 and 18 January 2025 contained at pages 1407-1409 of the Court Book;
(e)   the affidavit made on 2 January 2025 and filed on 2 and 18 January 2025 contained at pages 1418-1421 of the Court Book;
(f)   the affidavit made by Petersen on 4 January 2025 and filed on 6 January 2025 contained at pages 618-785 of the Court Book (referred to as the 2^nd Petersen Affidavit);
(g)   the affidavit made by Petersen on 6 January 2025 and filed on 7 January 2025 contained at pages 786-846 of the Court Book (referred to as the 3^rd Petersen Affidavit);
(h)   the affidavit made by Petersen and filed on 4 January 2025, which is not contained in the Court Book;
(i)   the affidavit made by Petersen and filed on 13 January 2025 contained at pages 1404-1406 of the Court Book (referred to as the 6^th Petersen Affidavit’);
(j)   the 10 notices to admit served by Petersen on the Society contained at pages 1567-1642 of the Court Book; and
(k)   the residential address of Traci Genrich set out at page 443 of the Court Book.
5.Pursuant to s 57 of the Evidence Act 1939 (NT), publication of the names of the deponents to the affidavits referred to in Order 4(a) to (e) is forbidden.

I will hear the parties as to costs.

----------------

[1]The Act, s 5(b).

[2]See In re Lee [2015] NTSC 22 at [7] per Barr J.

[3]As has been held in other jurisdictions: see Re Warren [1976] VR 406 at 408 per Young CJ, Gillard and Anderson JJ; Re OG [2007] VSC 197; Re OG (No 2) 18 VR 164; Legal Services Commissioner v Scott [2014] QCA 266 (‘Scott’).

[4]Ibid, particularly Scott at [30]-[33] per Carmody J. (Scott involved legislation in similar terms to the Act).

[5]Re Gadd [2013] NTSC 13 at [4] per Blokland J, citing Re Deo (2005) 16 NTLR 102 at [4] per Martin (BR) CJ.

[6]In Re OG [2007] VSC 197, the Supreme Court of Victoria held (at [7]) that the primary and fundamental issue of singular importance in that case (which related to a failure to disclose a suitability matter in the application for admission) was whether the admission should stand.

[7]See, for example, Connop v Law Society Northern Territory [2016] NTSC 38 at [19] per Hiley J; Heffernan v Law Society Northern Territory [2023] NTCA 10 at [174] per Grant CJ, Blokland and Brownhill JJ. In those cases, the ultimate issue was whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to be admitted as a lawyer. However, the nature of the onus of proof is similar here.

[8]See Re Warren [1976] VR 406 at 408-409; Re OG (No 2) 18 VR 164 at [125]-[128]; Scott at [49]-[55].

[9]CB V1, p 24.

[10]CB V1, pp 26-30.

[11]CB V1, pp 70-71.

[12]5^th Petersen Affidavit, Annexure Q: CB V4, pp 1174-1175.

[13]CB V1, p 409.

[14]Documents returned under subpoena from QLS (‘Ex P1’), Doc 1.

[15]Ex P1, Doc 1.

[16]Ex P1, Doc 1.

[17]Ex P1, Doc 1.

[18]Ex P1, Doc 2.

[19]Ex P1, Doc 2.

[20]Ex P1, Doc 3.

[21]Ex P1, Doc 4.

[22]Ex P1, Docs 5 and 6.

[23]Ex P1, Doc 6.

[24]Ex P1, Doc 9.

[25]Ex P1, Doc 9.

[26]Ex P1, Doc 13.

[27]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 97.

[28]Ex P1, Doc 12.

[29]Ex P1, Doc 12.

[30]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 100.

[31]Ex P1, Doc 16.

[32]This appears to be a reference to the bankruptcy in 1998.

[33]Ex P1, Doc 15.

[34]Transcript, Petersen XXN, pp 103-104.

[35]Ex P1, Doc 18.

[36]Ex P1, Doc 22.

[37]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 105.

[38]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 105.

[39]Ex P1, Doc 20.

[40]Ex P1, Doc 21.

[41]Ex P1, Doc 23.

[42]Ex P1, Doc 24.

[43]Ex P1, Doc 25.

[44]Ex P1, Doc 25.

[45]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 105.

[46]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 106.

[47]Ex P1, Docs 27, 29.

[48]Ex P1, Doc 28.

[49]Ex P1, Doc 29.

[50]Ex P1, Doc 12.

[51]Ex P1, Doc 31.

[52]Ex P1, Docs 33-40.

[53]Ex P1, Doc 41.

[54]Transcript, Petersen XXN, pp 106-107.

[55]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 107.

[56]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 107.

[57]Ex P1, Doc 41.

[58]Ex P1, Doc 42.

[59]Ex P1, Doc 43.

[60]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 108.

[61]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 108.

[62]Legal Profession Admission Guidelines, [3.1].

[63]See, for example, Frugtniet v Board of Examiners [2002] VSC 140; Re Petrolias [2005] 1 Qd R 643; Frugtniet v Board of Examiners [2005] VSC 332.

[64]Frugtniet v Board of Examiners [2002] VSC 140 at [14] per Pagone J; Re Del Castillo (1998) 136 ACTR 1 at 7 per Miles CJ, Gallop and Madgwick JJ.

[65]Frugtniet v Board of Examiners [2005] VSC 332 at [22] per Gillard J.

[66]Transcript, Petersen XXN, pp 95-96; 102.

[67]Transcript, Petersen XXN, pp 96; 102-103.

[68]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 104.

[69]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 113. It was put to Petersen that she had not disclosed the Nolan decision and she said: ‘I accept that I didn’t, and I have apologised for that. I was wrong, objectively and subjectively.’

[70]See the pro-forma precedent affidavit in support of an application for admission.

[71]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 110.

[72]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 111.

[73]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 111.

[74]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 112.

[75]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 113.

[76]Transcript, Petersen XXN, pp 94-95.

[77]Transcript, 25 March 2025, pp 139-140.

[78]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 94.

[79]CB V1, pp 28-29.

[80]CB V1, pp 47-58.

[81]Transcript, Petersen XXN, pp 97, 100.

[82]CB V1, p 85.

[83]CB V1, p 295.

[84]Affidavit of Aislinn McIntyre made on 8 November 2024 (‘McIntyre Affidavit’), [35].

[85]Section 86 of the Act permits the Society to require an applicant or holder of a local practising certificate to provide specified documents or information or co-operate with inquiries by the Society, to help it consider whether or not to grant, renew, amend, suspend or cancel a local practising certificate.

[86]CB V1, pp 179-183.

[87]CB V1, pp 184-185.

[88]CB V1, pp 244-255.

[89]CB V1, pp 280-288.

[90]CB V1, p 315.

[91]CB V1, p 375.

[92]In writing, Petersen often referred to herself in the third person.

[93]McIntyre Affidavit, [40]-[51].

[94]CB V1, p 406.

[95]CB V1, pp 407-442.

[96]CB V1, p 443.

[97]CB V1, p 407.

[98]Affidavit of Petersen made on 11 January 2025 (‘5^th Petersen Affidavit’), [22]: CB V4, p 1028.

[99]Affidavit of Petersen made on 8 January 2025 (‘4^th Petersen Affidavit’), [138]: CB V3, p 852; 3^rd Petersen Affidavit, [42], [63], [67]: CB V4, pp 1031, 1033.

[100]5^th Petersen Affidavit, Annexure Q: CB V4, p 1174.

[101]Affidavit of Petersen made on 11 January 2025 (‘5^th Petersen Affidavit’), [22]: CB V4, p 1028.

[102]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [55]: CB V4, p 1033.

[103]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [58]: CB V4, p 1033.

[104]CB V1, pp 70-71.

[105]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [65]-[66]: CB V4, p 1033.

[106]5^th Petersen Affidavit, Annexure V: CB V4, pp 1246-1249.

[107]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [97]: CB V4, p 1036.

[108]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [98]: CB V4, p 1036.

[109]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [52]: CB V4, p 1032.

[110]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [59]: CB V4, p 1033.

[111]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [100]-[101]: CB V4, p 1036.

[112]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [102]-[103]: CB V4, p 1036.

[113]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [104]: CB V4, p 1036.

[114]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [110], [112]: CB V4, p 1037.

[115]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [113]-[114]: CB V4, p 1037.

[116]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [116]-[117], [166]: CB V4, pp 1037, 1044-1045.

[117]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [120], [124]: CB V4, p 1038.

[118]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [125]-[126]: CB V4, p 1038.

[119]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [127]: CB V4, p 1038.

[120]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [198]: CB V4, p 1047.

[121]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [199]: CB V4, p 1047.

[122]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [201]: CB V4, p 1048.

[123]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 115.

[124]CB V1, pp 158-163.

[125]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 114.

[126]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 114.

[127]Queensland Chief Health Officer, Revocation of Movement and Gathering Direction, which took effect on 2 April 2020.

[128]Queensland Chief Health Officer, Non-Essential Business, Activity and Undertaking Closure Direction (No 5), which took effect on 9 April 2020.

[129]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 120.

[130]Transcript, Petersen XXN, pp 120-121.

[131]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 121.

[132]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 122.

[133]5^th Petersen Affidavit, Annexure V: CB V4, p 1245.

[134]5^th Petersen Affidavit, Annexure V: CB V4, p 1231.

[135]5^th Petersen Affidavit, Annexure V: CB V4, p 1245.

[136]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 117.

[137]Transcript, Petersen XXN, pp 117-118.

[138]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 118.

[139]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 118.

[140]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 118.

[141]McIntyre Affidavit, [19(a)]: CB V1, p 13.

[142]CB V1, p 79.

[143]This notation was handwritten on the form.

[144]CB V1, p 81.

[145]CB V1, p 82.

[146]McIntyre Affidavit, [19(b)]: CB V1, p 14.

[147]CB V1, p 94.

[148]This notation was handwritten on the form.

[149]McIntyre Affidavit, [19(c)]: CB V1, p 14.

[150]CB V1, p 94.

[151]CB V1, p 98.

[152]This notation was handwritten on the form.

[153]McIntyre Affidavit, [19(d)]: CB V1, p 14.

[154]CB V1, pp 106-107.

[155]McIntyre Affidavit, [19(e)]: CB V1, p 15.

[156]CB V1, p 113.

[157]McIntyre Affidavit, [19(f)]: CB V1, p 15.

[158]CB V1, p 118.

[159]5^th Petersen Affidavit, Annexure V: CB V4, p 1243.

[160]CB V4, pp 1024-1025.

[161]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 101.

[162]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 101.

[163]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 101.

[164]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 101.

[165]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 102.

[166]5^th Petersen Affidavit, Annexure V: CB V4, p 1244.

[167]CB V2, p 597.

[168]CB V2, p 596.

[169]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 99.

[170]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 99.

[171]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 99.

[172]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 98.

[173]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 98.

[174]Transcript, Petersen XXN, pp 114-115.

[175]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 115.

[176]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 115.

[177]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 115.

[178]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 114-115.

[179]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 116.

[180]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [68]-[69]: CB V4, p 1034.

[181]5^th Petersen Affidavit, [71]-[79]: CB V4, pp 1034-1035.

[182]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 123.

[183]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 123.

[184]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 123.

[185]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 123.

[186]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 124.

[187]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 124.

[188]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 124.

[189]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 124.

[190]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 124.

[191]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 124.

[192]See Cross on Evidence, [1215] and the authorities there cited.

[193]See O’Donnell v Reichard [1975] VR 916 at 929 per the Court.

[194]5^th Petersen Affidavit, Annexure Y: CB V4, pp 1313-1315; 1324-1326; Exhibit R1, being an email from the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission dated 14 November 2019, thanking Petersen for her application for a position; Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 92.

[195]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 93.

[196]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 109.

[197]Transcript, Petersen XXN, pp 109-110.

[198]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 120.

[199]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 119.

[200]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 119.

[201]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 119.

[202]To adopt the language of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Re OG (A Lawyer) (2007) 18 VR 164 at [125] per Warren CJ, Nettle JA and Mandie J.

[203]CB V5, pp 1407-1409; 1410-1412; 1413-1417; 1418-1421; 1422-1425.

[204]CB V5, pp 1408; 1411; 1416; 1424.

[205]Transcript, Petersen XXN, p 125.

[206]Transcript, Petersen XXN, pp 125-126.

[207]CB V2, pp 598-610.

[208]Transcript, 24 March 2025, p 4.

[209]CB V2, pp 618-785.

[210]CB V2, pp 786-846.

[211]CB V5, pp 1404-1406

[212]See also Heffernan v Law Society Northern Territory Grant CJ, Blokland and Brownhill JJ at [73]-[77].

[213]CB V2, pp 847-1023.

[214]CB V5, pp 1567-1642.

[215]CB V5, p 1643.

[216]CB V2, pp 447-595.

[217]Respondent’s Submissions: (Closed Court & Non-publication Order) filed on 12 February 2025.

[218]Respondent’s List of Documents for Permanent Suppression Order filed on 4 April 2025.

[219]Ibid.

[220]Those at CB V5, pp 1410-1412, 1413-1417, 1422-1425.

[221]At CB V5, pp 1407-1409.

[222]At CB V5, pp 1418-1421.

[223]CB V2, p 615.

[224]Scott at [56] per Alan Wilson J (Fraser JA and Atkinson J agreeing).