Prothonotary v Gregory

Case [2017] NSWCA 101

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Prothonotary v Gregory [2017] NSWCA 101
Hearing dates: 18 April 2017
Decision date: 18 May 2017
Before: Bathurst CJ, Beazley P, Sackville AJA
Decision:

1.   Declare that Paul John Gregory (the Respondent) has been guilty of professional misconduct.
2.   Declare that the Respondent is not a fit and proper person to be on the Roll of Legal Practitioners of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
3.   Order that the name of the Respondent be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
4.   The Respondent pay the costs of the Applicant, the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, of and incidental to these proceedings.

Catchwords: LEGAL PROFESSION – solicitor convicted of conspiring to dishonestly cause a risk of loss to a Commonwealth entity – application in the inherent jurisdiction to remove the solicitor from the Roll – whether sentencing remarks admissible to prove underlying facts – Court satisfied of unfitness to practise
Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 29D
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 135.4(5)

 

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 91, 92, 178
Legal Practitioners Act 1898 (NSW), s 79
Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Act 1935 (NSW)
Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW), s 171M(1)
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), ss 6(1), 22(1), 23(2), 87, 261, 264(1), 296, 297, Ch 5
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (NSW), ss 4, 11(2)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 48(2)(k)

 

Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 65A r 2(1)

Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), s 178
Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic), Sch 1
Cases Cited: A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (2004) 216 CLR 253; [2004] HCA 1
Barristers’ Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253; 112 A Crim R 438
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Clearihan v Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers in the Australian Capital Territory (1994) 117 FLR 455
Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Einfeld [2009] NSWCA 255; 258 ALR 768
Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Power (2008) 71 NSWLR 451; [2008] NSWCA 135
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1; [2011] VSCA 145
In re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409
McBride v Walton [1994] NSWCA 199
New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284
New South Wales Bar Association v Hamman [1999] NSWCA 404; 217 ALR 553
New South Wales Bar Association v Maddocks [1988] NSWCA 102
New South Wales Bar Association v Somosi [2001] NSWCA 285; 48 ATR 562
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Livanes [2012] NSWCA 325
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Ritchard (Court of Appeal (NSW), 31 July 1987, unrep)
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Sukkar [2007] NSWCA 341
Prothonotary of the…

Continue reading Prothonotary v Gregory

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Prothonotary v Gregory [2017] NSWCA 101
Case
[2017] NSWCA 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales applied to the Court of Appeal for the removal of Paul John Gregory from the Roll of Legal Practitioners. The application followed Mr Gregory's conviction for conspiring to dishonestly cause a risk of loss to a Commonwealth entity. The central dispute concerned whether Mr Gregory was a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll, given his criminal conviction.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Mr Gregory's conviction constituted professional misconduct and, consequently, whether he was a fit and proper person to practise law. A key issue was the admissibility of the sentencing remarks made by the judge who presided over Mr Gregory's criminal trial, specifically whether those remarks could be relied upon to establish the underlying facts of the offence for the purposes of the disciplinary proceedings.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal held that the sentencing remarks were admissible and sufficient to establish the facts underlying Mr Gregory's conviction. The Court found that the nature of the offence, involving dishonesty and a conspiracy to cause loss to a Commonwealth entity, demonstrated a fundamental lack of integrity incompatible with the duties of a legal practitioner. Consequently, the Court was satisfied that Mr Gregory was guilty of professional misconduct and was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll.

The Court ordered that Mr Gregory be declared guilty of professional misconduct and not a fit and proper person to be on the Roll of Legal Practitioners. His name was ordered to be removed from the Roll, and he was ordered to pay the Prothonotary's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Declare that Paul John Gregory (the Respondent) has been guilty of professional misconduct.

2. Declare that the Respondent is not a fit and proper person to be on the Roll of Legal Practitioners of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

3. Order that the name of the Respondent be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

4. The Respondent pay the costs of the Applicant, the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, of and incidental to these proceedings.

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.