Legal Services Commissioner v Munt - [2019] QCAT 160

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Munt [2019] QCAT 160

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)

v

NIGEL FRANCIS MUNT

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR080-17

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

25 June 2019

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2018

Further written submissions

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Daubney, President

Assisted by:
Mr Peter Sheehy
Dr Margaret Steinberg AM

ORDERS:

1.   The respondent not be granted a local practising certificate before the end of the period of five years commencing 8 April 2015;

2.   The respondent is publicly reprimanded;

3.   The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this discipline application, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis for matters in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – CRIMINAL OFFENCES – where the respondent was convicted of three dangerous drug offences – where the Tribunal finds the respondent’s offending conduct constitutes professional misconduct – where the misconduct did not occur in connection with legal practice – what orders should be made under s 456 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 consequent on the finding of professional misconduct

Legal Profession Act 2007, s 419, s 456, s 462

Barristers' Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253
Council of the Law Society of Queensland v Whitman [2003] QCA 438
Legal Practitioners’ Complaints Committee v Bull [2006] WASAT 217
Legal Practitioners’ Complaints Committee v Palumbo [2005] WASCA 129
Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2009] 1 Qd R 149
Legal Services Commissioner v Meehan [2019] QCAT 17
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v P [2003] NSWCA 320
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Sukkar [2007] NSWCA 341
Re a Practitioner [2004] WASCA 283
Watts v Legal Services Commissioner [2016] QCA 224
Ziems v Prothonotray of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

M R Lester, Prosecutor of Legal Services Commissioner

Respondent:

M Black instructed by McGinness & Associates

REASONS FOR DECISION

This discipline application under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (“LPA”) brought by the applicant, the Legal Services Commissioner, against the respondent, Nigel Francis Munt, particularises one charge, namely that on 8 April 2015, the respondent was convicted of the offences of:
(a)trafficking in a dangerous drug methylamphetamine between 23 August 2011 and 8 August 2012 (one count);
(b)supplying dangerous drug methylamphetamine between 21 September 2011 and 5 July 2012 (19 counts); and
(c)supplying dangerous drug cannabis on 2 November 2011.
For having committed these offences, the respondent was sentenced to an effective head sentence of three years’ imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of four years.
It was not in issue that the fact of these convictions, and indeed the circumstances underpinning the convictions, were such as to warrant a finding of professional misconduct[1] against the respondent.
[1]Within the meaning of that term in s 419 of the LPA

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 Munt 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: [2019] QCAT 160
Decision Date: 25 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Legal Services Commissioner against a respondent who had been convicted of three serious drug-related offences. The Commissioner argued that these criminal activities constituted professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action under the Legal Profession Act 2007. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the respondent’s criminal conduct, which was unrelated to their legal practice, amounted to professional misconduct that warranted disciplinary action under the Act.

The Tribunal found that the respondent’s criminal activities constituted professional misconduct, as they demonstrated a lack of honesty, trustworthiness, and unsuitability to practise law. Despite the fact that the misconduct did not occur in connection with the respondent’s legal practice, the Tribunal held that the nature of the offences was such that it brought the legal profession into disrepute. The Tribunal considered the respondent’s previous good standing and the absence of any previous disciplinary action against them, but ultimately concluded that the gravity of the offences warranted a significant disciplinary response.

In determining the appropriate disciplinary order, the Tribunal imposed a five-year suspension of the respondent’s right to be granted a local practising certificate, along with a public reprimand and an order that the respondent pay the Commissioner’s costs. The Tribunal found these measures to be appropriate given the seriousness of the respondent’s criminal conduct and the need to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. The respondent has the right to appeal the Tribunal’s decision within 28 days of the decision being made.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent not be granted a local practising certificate before the end of the period of five years commencing 8 April 2015;

2. The respondent is publicly reprimanded;

3. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this discipline application, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis for matters 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.

CITATION:	Legal Services Commissioner v Munt [2019] QCAT 160
PARTIES:	LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER (applicant)
v
NIGEL FRANCIS MUNT (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR080-17
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	25 June 2019
HEARING DATE:	11 April 2018 Further written submissions
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Justice Daubney, President Assisted by: Mr Peter Sheehy Dr Margaret Steinberg AM
ORDERS:	1. The respondent not be granted a local practising certificate before the end of the period of five years commencing 8 April 2015; 2. The respondent is publicly reprimanded; 3. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this discipline application, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis for matters in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – CRIMINAL OFFENCES – where the respondent was convicted of three dangerous drug offences – where the Tribunal finds the respondent’s offending conduct constitutes professional misconduct – where the misconduct did not occur in connection with legal practice – what orders should be made under s 456 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 consequent on the finding of professional misconduct Legal Profession Act 2007, s 419, s 456, s 462 Barristers' Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253 Council of the Law Society of Queensland v Whitman [2003] QCA 438 Legal Practitioners’ Complaints Committee v Bull [2006] WASAT 217 Legal Practitioners’ Complaints Committee v Palumbo [2005] WASCA 129 Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2009] 1 Qd R 149 Legal Services Commissioner v Meehan [2019] QCAT 17 Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v P [2003] NSWCA 320 Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Sukkar [2007] NSWCA 341 Re a Practitioner [2004] WASCA 283 Watts v Legal Services Commissioner [2016] QCA 224 Ziems v Prothonotray of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	M R Lester, Prosecutor of Legal Services Commissioner
Respondent:	M Black instructed by McGinness & Associates