LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD -v- RIDAH [2004] WASC 263

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASC 263
Case No:	CIV:1272/2002	Heard:	26 NOVEMBER 2004
Coram:	MCKECHNIE J	Delivered:	26/11/04
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Contempt admitted Sentence of imprisonment for 20 months
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD AHMAD ALI RIDAH
Catchwords:	Legal practitioners Holding out as a legal practitioner Contempt of Court Person pretending to be solicitor for many months Serious contempt
Legislation:	Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), s 76, s 77
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD -v- RIDAH [2004] WASC 263 CORAM : MCKECHNIE J HEARD : 26 NOVEMBER 2004 DELIVERED : 26 NOVEMBER 2004 FILE NO/S : CIV 1272 of 2002 MATTER : Legal Practitioners Act 1893 as amended, s76, s 77, s 80 and s 81

and

Legal Practice Act 2003

s 123, s 128 and s 250

BETWEEN : LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD

Applicant

AND

AHMAD ALI RIDAH

Respondent

Catchwords:

Legal practitioners - Holding out as a legal practitioner - Contempt of Court - Person pretending to be solicitor for many months - Serious contempt

Legislation:

Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), s 76, s 77

(Page 2)

Result:

Contempt admitted

Sentence of imprisonment for 20 months

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr B H Goetze

Respondent : Ms M A Loveday

Solicitors:

Applicant : Minter Ellison

Respondent : Marilyn Loveday

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MCKECHNIE J: The Court has before it a motion brought by the Legal Practice Board against Ahmad Ali Rida seeking that he be punished for a contempt of this Court in that not being a duly certificated practitioner between in or about June 2001 and March 2002 at Perth he:

"1. …

(a) purported to or pretended to be, made use of words and names, title and description implying or tending to the belief that the respondent was a practitioner or recognised by law as such;

(b) directly or indirectly commenced proceedings and acted as a barrister and solicitor of this court in causes and matters before it and in other Courts in Western Australia; and

(c) directly or indirectly performed, carried out or engaged in work in connection with the administration of law and drew and prepared writing relating to proceedings at law."

2 The wording of the motion follows the wording of the Legal Practitioners Act 1893, particularly s 76 and s 77. That Act has now been repealed but was in place at the time of these allegations. By s 81 of the Legal Practitioners Act, a person breaching the Act shall be guilty of a contempt of the Supreme Court, and may be dealt with accordingly by this Court.

3 The facts before the Court are substantially found in the affidavit of the Secretary of the Legal Practice Board, which was read into…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Practice Board v Ridah and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] WASC 263
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Legal Practice Board v Ridah involved the Legal Practice Board bringing a motion against Ahmad Ali Rida in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The Board sought a sentence for Rida's contempt of court, alleging that he had acted as a legal practitioner without proper certification between June 2001 and March 2002. Specifically, the Board accused Rida of pretending to be a solicitor, engaging in legal practice, and misleading numerous clients into believing he was a qualified legal practitioner. This conduct allegedly contravened the Legal Practitioners Act 1893.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Rida had indeed engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, thereby committing a contempt of court. This required the court to determine if the evidence presented by the Board sufficiently proved Rida's actions as described. Given Rida's admissions in his affidavit, the court found that he had indeed impersonated a legal practitioner, provided legal services, and engaged in activities reserved for qualified legal professionals. This conduct was deemed a serious breach of the legal profession's integrity and public trust.

The court, presided over by McKechnie J, concluded that Rida's actions were a clear case of contempt. Despite Rida's lengthy criminal history and the fact that he had already been sentenced for fraud, the court found that the contempt charge warranted a separate punishment to denounce the unauthorized practice of law. Considering the gravity of Rida's actions, which involved deceiving numerous clients and judicial officers, the court imposed a sentence of 20 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with his existing sentence, and without parole eligibility. The court also ordered Rida to pay the Legal Practice Board's costs.

Orders