Re Crowley and the Legal Practitioners Act 1893 - [1999] WASCA 164

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: RE CROWLEY AND THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT 1893 [1999] WASCA 164

CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
ANDERSON J
WHITE J

HEARD: 13 AUGUST 1999

DELIVERED : 13 AUGUST 1999

PUBLISHED : 10 SEPTEMBER 1999

FILE NO/S: LPD 2 of 1999

MATTER :The Legal Practitioners Act 1893
and
Michael Thomas Crowley a practitioner of the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Catchwords:

Legal Practitioners - Legal Officer in Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Corporate Prosecutions - Struck off Roll of Practitioners - Convicted of offences related to disclosing prosecution materials in breach of duty and interference with due administration of justice in pursuit of personal gain - Strikes at heart of administration of justice - Not a fit and proper person to remain on Roll

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Practitioner struck off the Roll

Representation:

Counsel:

Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee : Mr B J H Goetze
Practitioner : No appearance

Solicitors:

Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee : Minter Ellison
Practitioner : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Clyne v NSW Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186
Harvey v Law Society of New South Wales (1975) 49 ALJR 362
In Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409
New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt (1968) 117 CLR 177
Re a Barrister and Solicitor (1979) 40 FLR 1
Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW (1957) 97 CLR 279

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This was a motion that:
1.Michael Thomas Crowley be struck off the Roll of Practitioners of this Honourable Court or otherwise dealt with as the Court may think fit; and
2.the practitioner pay the costs of and incidental to this motion to be taxed.
At the conclusion of the hearing on 13 August 1999 the Court was unanimously of the opinion that an order should be made in terms of the motion that the practitioner be struck off the Roll of Practitioners and that the practitioner pay the costs of the motion to be taxed. The Court then indicated that it would publish the reasons for making that order later. These are my reasons for joining in the making of the order.
By two references numbered R24 of 1997 dated 3 September 1997 and R12 of 1998 dated 27 November 1998 proceedings were issued before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal against the practitioner. The complainant in each reference was the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee.
In reference R24 of 1997 it was alleged that the practitioner was guilty of illegal conduct in that on 26 February 1995 at Perth the practitioner, being a Commonwealth Officer, namely a Legal Officer 2 in the Corporate Prosecutions Branch of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, published to one John Bryan Bond, a person to whom he was not authorised to publish the documents, a bundle of documents relating to the obtaining of the consent of the Attorney General to the institution…

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.

Continue reading Re Crowley and the Legal Practitioners Act 1893

Details

AGLC: Re Crowley and the Legal Practitioners Act 1893 [1999] WASCA 164
Case: [1999] WASCA 164
Decision Date: 10 SEPTEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Crowley and the Legal Practitioners Act 1893 involved Michael Thomas Crowley, a former legal officer in the Corporate Prosecutions Branch of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, who was subject to disciplinary proceedings and a motion to be struck off the Roll of Practitioners of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Crowley had been convicted of offences related to disclosing prosecution materials in breach of his duty and interfering with the due administration of justice for personal gain. The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal received references from the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee alleging illegal conduct by Crowley, which were mirrored in the indictment presented against him in the District Court. After trials, Crowley was found guilty on both counts.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Crowley's conduct warranted his removal from the Roll of Practitioners and if he should be ordered to pay the costs of the motion. The court had to consider the gravity of Crowley's offences, which included disclosing confidential prosecution details to an unauthorised person and soliciting payment for information, and the impact of these actions on the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice. The court also had to assess Crowley's admission of guilt and his acknowledgment of the serious disrepute his actions had caused.

The court determined that Crowley's conduct was of such a serious nature that it struck at the heart of the administration of justice. The court found that Crowley's breach of trust and interference with justice for personal gain demonstrated that he was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Practitioners. The court unanimously agreed that Crowley should be struck off the Roll and ordered him to pay the costs of the motion. These decisions were based on the severity of Crowley's crimes, his admission of guilt, and the significant impact of his actions on the legal profession and the justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

ANDERSON J

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This was a motion that:1.Michael Thomas Crowley be struck off the Roll of Practitioners of this Honourable Court or otherwise dealt with as the Court may think fit; and2.the practitioner pay the costs of and incidental to this motion to be taxed. At the conclusion of the hearing on 13 August 1999 the Court was unanimously of the opinion that an order should be made in terms of the motion that the practitioner be struck off the Roll of Practitioners and that the practitioner pay the costs of the motion to be taxed. The Court then indicated that it would publish the reasons for making that order later. These are my reasons for joining in the making of the order. By two references numbered R24 of 1997 dated 3 September 1997 and R12 of 1998 dated 27 November 1998 proceedings were issued before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal against the practitioner. The complainant in each reference was the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee. In reference R24 of 1997 it was alleged that the practitioner was guilty of illegal conduct in that on 26 February 1995 at Perth the practitioner, being a Commonwealth Officer, namely a Legal Officer 2 in the Corporate Prosecutions Branch of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, published to one John Bryan Bond, a person to whom he was not authorised to publish the documents, a bundle of documents relating to the obtaining of the consent of the Attorney General to the institution of a prosecution against Alan Bond and others, which documents came into his possession by virtue of being a Commonwealth Officer and which it was his duty not to disclose. By Reference R12 of 1998 it was alleged that the practitioner was guilty of illegal conduct in that on 26 February 1995 at Perth, being a Commonwealth Officer employed in a non‑judicial capacity for the prosecution of offenders, namely a Legal Officer 2 in the Corporate Prosecutions Branch of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, corruptly asked John Bryan Bond for the payment of $2 million offshore on account of an act to be done, namely disclosing to John Bryan Bond confidential details of a prosecution then pending against Alan Bond, with a view to corrupt or improper interference with the due administration of justice under a law of the Commonwealth. Each of these references mirrored counts in an indictment presented against the practitioner in the District Court. After a trial before a Judge of that Court and a jury on 10 March 1997, the jury found the practitioner guilty of the count in the indictment the subject of the allegation of illegal conduct in reference R24 of 1997, but could not reach a verdict on the second count in the indictment the subject of reference R12 of 1998. Subsequently, following a re‑trial of the second count in the District Court, the practitioner was found guilty on 25 February 1998. The practitioner did not file an answer to either reference but in a letter to the Tribunal the practitioner said:"I refer to your previous correspondence to me concerning this matter which is to be heard on Friday 16 April 1999. I confirm that I have received the above two References together with notice of the hearing.Be advised that I do not propose attending the hearing nor have I instructed any counsel to appear on my behalf. I do ask however that this letter be taken into consideration by the Tribunal in their determination of these References.I have received a copy of a letter by Mr B Goetze of Messrs Minter Ellison, Lawyers, dated 30 March 1999 which outlined the documentary material he intended submitting to prove the References. I confirm that I do not wish to place any further material before the Tribunal except for this letter.I formally admit all the facts and allegations contained in the two References and acknowledge all the aggravating factors of my crime as expressed in the trial Judge's sentencing comments made on 17 March 1997 and 27 February 1998.I acknowledge the serious disrepute and loss of respect that my criminal actions brought to the legal profession and the justice system. I fully accept the lengthy term of imprisonment that I received as a consequence. My actions were a gross breach of trust and seriously wrong. I feel a great sense of shame and guilt and deeply regret my crime. I apologise to the legal profession and the judicial system and fully expect that a reference to the Supreme Court will result in my removal from the Rolls."

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: ANDERSON J

Full text does not contain this section.