Legal Services Commissioner v Perrin - [2019] QCAT 188

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Perrin [2019] QCAT 188

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)

v

MATTHEW DAVID PERRIN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR174-18

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

23 July 2019

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Daubney, President

Assisted by:

Ms Patrice McKay
Mr Geoffrey Sinclair

ORDERS:

1. It is recommended that the name of the respondent, Matthew David Perrin, be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland;

2. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this discipline application, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis in the manner in which costs would be assessed if the matter were 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 serious offences of dishonesty, namely forgery and fraud – where the respondent does not oppose the application and waived all rights to file any material, make any arguments or otherwise oppose the orders sought by the applicant – whether the respondent’s convictions for serious offences constitute professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct – whether the name of the respondent should be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 418, s 419, s 452, s 462

Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner & Anor; Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66
Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2009] 1 Qd R 149
Legal Services Commissioner v McQuaid [2019] QCA 136
Legal Services Commissioner v Meehan [2019] QCAT 17
Legal Services Commissioner v Munt [2019] QCAT 160
Watts v Legal Services Commissioner [2016] QCA 224 Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v P [2003] NSWCA 320
Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

M R Lester, Prosecutor, Legal Services Commission

Respondent:

Self-represented

APPEARANCES:

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

This discipline application, which was filed on 28 June 2018, is brought by the Legal Services Commissioner (“the Applicant”) against Matthew David Perrin (“the Respondent”) pursuant to s 452 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (“LPA”) detailing one charge against the Respondent, namely that his convictions for serious offences constitute professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct.
The particulars of the charge are set out in the discipline application:
1. That on 27 January 2017, following a trial by jury in the District Court of Queensland at Brisbane, the respondent was convicted of the following serious offences under the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld):
(a)Forgery and uttering a deed – bond – warrant between 15 May 2008 and 20 May 2008 and 12 June 2008 and 24 June 2008 (three counts);
(b)Forge document…

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 Perrin 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 188
Decision Date: 23 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner brought proceedings against Matthew David Perrin, a registered legal practitioner in Queensland, seeking his removal from the roll of legal practitioners. The basis for the application was the respondent's conviction for serious offences of dishonesty, including forgery and fraud. Perrin did not oppose the application and waived all rights to file any material, make any arguments, or otherwise oppose the orders sought by the Commissioner.

The court needed to determine whether the respondent's convictions for serious offences of dishonesty constituted professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Queensland). The court also had to decide if the respondent's name should be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland.

The court noted that Perrin's convictions for forgery and fraud were serious offences of dishonesty and reflected very badly on his fitness to practise as a legal practitioner. Given the nature and seriousness of the offences, the court concluded that they constituted professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct. The court also found that Perrin's conduct demonstrated a lack of honesty, which was a core element of the legal profession. As such, the court was satisfied that removing Perrin's name from the roll of legal practitioners was necessary in the public interest.

The court ordered that the name of Matthew David Perrin be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland and that he pay the Legal Services Commissioner's costs of and incidental to the discipline application. The costs were to be assessed on the standard basis in the manner in which costs would be assessed if the matter were in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It is recommended that the name of the respondent, Matthew David Perrin, be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland;

2. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this discipline application, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis in the manner in which costs would be assessed 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.

CITATION:	Legal Services Commissioner v Perrin [2019] QCAT 188
PARTIES:	LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER (applicant)
v
MATTHEW DAVID PERRIN (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR174-18
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	23 July 2019
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Justice Daubney, President Assisted by: Ms Patrice McKay Mr Geoffrey Sinclair
ORDERS:	1. It is recommended that the name of the respondent, Matthew David Perrin, be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland; 2. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this discipline application, such costs to be assessed on the standard basis in the manner in which costs would be assessed if the matter were 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 serious offences of dishonesty, namely forgery and fraud – where the respondent does not oppose the application and waived all rights to file any material, make any arguments or otherwise oppose the orders sought by the applicant – whether the respondent’s convictions for serious offences constitute professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct – whether the name of the respondent should be removed from the roll of legal practitioners in Queensland Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 418, s 419, s 452, s 462 Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Legal Services Commissioner & Anor; Legal Services Commissioner v Shand [2018] QCA 66 Legal Services Commissioner v Madden (No 2) [2009] 1 Qd R 149 Legal Services Commissioner v McQuaid [2019] QCA 136 Legal Services Commissioner v Meehan [2019] QCAT 17 Legal Services Commissioner v Munt [2019] QCAT 160 Watts v Legal Services Commissioner [2016] QCA 224 Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v P [2003] NSWCA 320 Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279
REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	M R Lester, Prosecutor, Legal Services Commission
Respondent:	Self-represented
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).