Legal Services Commissioner v Hunter - [2024] QCAT 220

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Hunter [2024] QCAT 220

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v

NED MCGRANE HUNTER

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR010-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

4 July 2024

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Mellifont, President
Assisted by:
Ms Susan Forrest
Practitioner Panel Member
Dr Julian Lamont
Lay panel Member

ORDERS:

1.     The respondent is proved to have engaged in professional misconduct in respect of each of the three charges in the applicant’s disciplinary referral to the Tribunal.

2.     The Tribunal recommends pursuant to section 456(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll.

3.     The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Disciplinary Application filed 11 January 2024. The amount shall be as agreed between the applicant and respondent and if not agreed, to be assessed on the standard basis as if the matter were in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – PROFESSOINAL MISCONDUCT OR UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – where the respondent was convicted in the District Court on his own plea of guilty of two serious offences – where the respondent was convicted in the Magistrates Court on his own plea of guilty of 17 offences – where the respondent contravened a probation order and condition on a suspended sentence and was re-committed in the District Court – where the applicant has brought charges against the respondent for the convictions of offences and for engaging in conduct which is likely, to a material degree, bring the profession into disrepute – where the respondent accepts that the conduct constituted professional misconduct – where the respondent agreed to the proposed sanction to remove his name from the roll - whether the Tribunal is satisfied as to the agreed characterisation of the respondent’s conduct and the agreed sanction

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld)

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)

Barristers’ Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253

Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Sahade [2007] NSWCA 145
Legal Practitioners’ Complaints Committee vPalumbo [2001] WASCA 129
Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2008] QCA 301
Legal Services Commissioner v McKenzie [2021] QCAT 377
Legal Services Commissioner v Munt [2019] QCAT 160
Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66
Legal Services Commissioner v Yarwood [2015] QCAT 208
Prothonotarv of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v P [2003] NSWCA 320
Watts v Legal Services Commissioner [2016] QCA 224

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

This is a referral by the applicant to QCAT alleging disciplinary conduct against the respondent, containing three disciplinary charges. The respondent admits that he has engaged in the conduct as alleged.

Facts

The respondent was admitted…

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 Services Commissioner v Hunter 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: [2024] QCAT 220
Decision Date: 4 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner brought charges against the respondent, a legal practitioner, in the Legal Services Tribunal of Queensland. The Commissioner alleged that the respondent's convictions for serious criminal offences and his breach of a probation order constituted professional misconduct and brought the legal profession into disrepute. The respondent admitted to the misconduct and agreed to the proposed sanction of removal from the legal roll. The Tribunal needed to decide whether the agreed characterisation of the respondent's conduct as professional misconduct was correct, and if the agreed sanction was appropriate.

The Tribunal reviewed the respondent's criminal convictions and his admission of professional misconduct. It considered the seriousness of the offences, the respondent's breach of a probation order, and the impact of his conduct on the legal profession. The Tribunal also took into account the respondent's cooperation and his agreement to the proposed sanction. The central issue was whether the agreed characterisation and sanction were appropriate given the respondent's criminal history and the potential for significant harm to the profession.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's criminal conduct and breach of a probation order amounted to professional misconduct. It accepted the respondent's admission and agreed characterisation of his conduct as professional misconduct. The Tribunal also found that the agreed sanction of removing the respondent's name from the legal roll was appropriate. The respondent's extensive criminal history, his breach of a probation order, and the significant harm to the legal profession supported the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent's name be removed from the local roll and that he pay the Commissioner's costs. The amount of costs was to be agreed upon by the parties or assessed on the standard basis. The Tribunal's decision was based on the respondent's admissions, the seriousness of his criminal conduct, and the need to protect the integrity of the legal profession.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent is proved to have engaged in professional misconduct in respect of each of the three charges in the applicant’s disciplinary referral to the Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal recommends pursuant to section 456(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll.

3. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the Disciplinary Application filed 11 January 2024. The amount shall be as agreed between the applicant and respondent and if not agreed, to be assessed on the standard basis as if the matter were in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.