Legal Services Commissioner v Irving - [2025] QCAT 197

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Irving [2025] QCAT 197

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(applicant)

v
SHAUNE KERRY IRVING

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR110-24
OCR181-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

30 May 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Burns J

Assisted by:

Mr Geoffrey Sinclair, Practitioner Panel Member
Mr Keith Revell, Lay Panel Member

ORDERS:

1.     In respect of each of Charges 1, 2 and 3 in disciplinary application 110 of 2024 and Charges 1, 2 and 3 in disciplinary application 181 of 2024, there is a finding of professional misconduct.

2.     In respect of Charge 4 in disciplinary application 110 of 2024, there is a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

3.     The Tribunal recommends that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll.

4.     The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the disciplinary applications, such costs to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis as if the applications were proceedings before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – CRIMINAL OFFENCES – where the respondent pleaded guilty to a series of criminal offences including making false declarations, supplying dangerous drugs, fraud, money laundering, perjury and attempting to pervert justice – where the applicant filed two separate discipline applications in which the conduct underlying the convictions was relied on to ground several disciplinary charges – where the respondent did not dispute that his conduct, again for the most part, constituted professional misconduct – where the respondent accepted that his conduct overall ought result in the removal of his name from the local roll – where the Tribunal was called to exercise the discretion confirmed by s 456(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) – whether it should be ordered that the respondent’s name be removed from the local roll

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 9, s 418, s 419, s 420, s 424, s 456, s 462

Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2009] 1 Qd R 149, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Munt [2019] QCAT 160, considered
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v P [2003] NSWCA 320, cited

Watts v Legal Services Commissioner [2016] QCA 224, cited

APPEARANCES &
REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Respondent:

S An, instructed by the Legal Services Commission

The respondent was self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

There are two disciplinary applications before the Tribunal which have been brought pursuant to the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) by the applicant Commissioner against the respondent, Shaune Kerry Irving. The first in time alleges three charges arising out of conduct of the respondent between June 2019 and February 2020.[1] The second alleges four charges arising out of conduct of the respondent between November 2019 and April 2020.[2]
[1]Application 110 of 2024.
[2]Application 181 of 2024.
Both applications proceeded on agreed statements of…

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 Irving 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: [2025] QCAT 197
Decision Date: 30 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Legal Services Commissioner v Irving, the Legal Services Tribunal was tasked with considering two separate disciplinary applications brought by the Legal Services Commissioner against the respondent, who had been convicted of a series of criminal offences. These offences included making false declarations, supplying dangerous drugs, fraud, money laundering, perjury, and attempting to pervert justice. The Commissioner filed the applications to seek disciplinary action against the respondent based on the conduct underlying these convictions. The respondent did not dispute that his conduct, for the most part, constituted professional misconduct and accepted that his overall conduct should result in the removal of his name from the local roll.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the respondent's conduct warranted findings of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct and whether his name should be removed from the local roll. The Tribunal was required to consider the statutory provisions, including section 456(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), which provides the discretion to order the removal of a practitioner's name from the local roll if the Tribunal finds professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct did indeed constitute professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct as defined by the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). It was clear from the respondent's own admissions and the nature of the criminal offences that his conduct was incompatible with the standards expected of a legal practitioner. The Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 456(1) of the Act and recommended that the respondent's name be removed from the local roll. In addition, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the disciplinary applications, to be agreed upon or assessed on the standard basis as if the applications were proceedings before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The final orders of the Tribunal were that there be findings of professional misconduct in respect of Charges 1, 2, and 3 in disciplinary application 110 of 2024 and Charges 1, 2, and 3 in disciplinary application 181 of 2024. Additionally, there was a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct in respect of Charge 4 in disciplinary application 110 of 2024. The Tribunal recommended that the respondent's name be removed from the local roll and ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the disciplinary applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of each of Charges 1, 2 and 3 in disciplinary application 110 of 2024 and Charges 1, 2 and 3 in disciplinary application 181 of 2024, there is a finding of professional misconduct.

2. In respect of Charge 4 in disciplinary application 110 of 2024, there is a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

3. The Tribunal recommends that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll.

4. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the disciplinary applications, such costs to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis as if the applications were proceedings before 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.

CITATION:	Legal Services Commissioner v Irving [2025] QCAT 197
PARTIES:	LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER (applicant) v SHAUNE KERRY IRVING (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR110-24 OCR181-24
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	30 May 2025
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Burns J Assisted by: Mr Geoffrey Sinclair, Practitioner Panel Member Mr Keith Revell, Lay Panel Member
ORDERS:	1. In respect of each of Charges 1, 2 and 3 in disciplinary application 110 of 2024 and Charges 1, 2 and 3 in disciplinary application 181 of 2024, there is a finding of professional misconduct. 2. In respect of Charge 4 in disciplinary application 110 of 2024, there is a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct. 3. The Tribunal recommends that the name of the respondent be removed from the local roll. 4. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the disciplinary applications, such costs to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis as if the applications were proceedings before the Supreme Court of Queensland.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – CRIMINAL OFFENCES – where the respondent pleaded guilty to a series of criminal offences including making false declarations, supplying dangerous drugs, fraud, money laundering, perjury and attempting to pervert justice – where the applicant filed two separate discipline applications in which the conduct underlying the convictions was relied on to ground several disciplinary charges – where the respondent did not dispute that his conduct, again for the most part, constituted professional misconduct – where the respondent accepted that his conduct overall ought result in the removal of his name from the local roll – where the Tribunal was called to exercise the discretion confirmed by s 456(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) – whether it should be ordered that the respondent’s name be removed from the local roll Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 5, s 6, s 9, s 418, s 419, s 420, s 424, s 456, s 462 Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2009] 1 Qd R 149, cited Legal Services Commissioner v Munt [2019] QCAT 160, considered Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v P [2003] NSWCA 320, cited Watts v Legal Services Commissioner [2016] QCA 224, cited
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Respondent:	S An, instructed by the Legal Services Commission The respondent was self-represented