Prothonotary v Gregory

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.