Re Shepherd

[2007] QCA 83

[2007] QCA 83

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

de JERSEY CJ
MUIR J

DOUGLAS J

IN THE MATTER OF AN
APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION
AS LEGAL PRACTITIONER BY:

Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 19/03/2007

ORDER

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The focus of the Board's position in opposing this application for

admission is the instances of offences of fraud committed against the Commonwealth in respect

of the receipt of Centrelink benefits to which the applicant was not entitled.

There were some 44 submissions of forms, over a two and a half year period up to February

2004, in which the applicant understated the income she was receiving from situations of part-

time employment. The amount of the defalcation was of the order of seven to $8,000 and that

amount was in the end repaid by the applicant's parents to the Commonwealth, they having

entered into an arrangement with her in relation to repayment.

The misleading of Centrelink involved serious deception, and a level of dishonestly which

would ordinarily be considered glaringly inimical to the honesty integral to fitness to practise

as a legal practitioner.

The explanation which is offered revolves about the personal circumstances of the applicant;

an abusive relationship; alleged instances of rape within that relationship; termination of pregnancies, disastrous circumstances which had led to her voluntarily undergoing psychological and

psychiatric treatment which is continuing.

The current position is usefully set out in the psychologist's report from which I read in the

course of argument. . I will

have to repeat that:

" is not currently suffering with a pervasive clinically significant psychological disorder. She does, however, experience periods of feeling overwhelmed by the raft of the implications arising from her offending behaviour. This distress manifests as acute anxiety, low mood and self- deprecatory thoughts. Fortunately, however, applies techniques acquired during counselling and is able to regain emotional equilibrium relatively quickly."

The psychologist's expectation is that the favourable resolution of the present application would

do much to relieve her potential for distress; a potential which is highly relevant, of course, in

the area in which she has been working, .

Her application today is supported by comprehensive affidavits from persons in the firm

and a consultant to that firm, .

There is no doubt that constitutes strongly persuasive support for her present application.

The position taken by the Board is that the application should await the effluxation of the two

year bond period imposed on the 8th of September 2006 following the applicant's pleas of guilty

to the fraud offences. She was released upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $2,000

on condition she be of good behaviour for a period of two years. That period of two years

expires on the 8th of September 2008.

senior counsel, for the applicant, refers to the statutory provisions under which

that order was made and characterises it as nominal punishment. That may be so, but as he also

rightly acknowledged, this Court now is embarking upon a rather different enquiry, that is the

holding out of the applicant to the public as fit to practise as a legal practitioner.

In my opinion, notwithstanding the circumstances which surrounded her during the period of

the offending, and notwithstanding the substantial support given her by her seniors within the firm, and the level of assurance which is afforded by the continuing psychiatric and

psychological counselling and support, the problem in the end, from our point of view, does

remain, and that is the inordinate difficulty of holding out, at this stage, as fit to practise as

a lawyer, a person who, in comparatively recent years, has committed serious offences involving

deception, for her own financial benefit, and in circumstances where it was only on the 8th of

September last year that she was dealt with for that offending in the Magistrates Court.

It does seem to me that the application should be adjourned to a date to be fixed, not to be re-

listed before the 8th of September 2008, and I can say in conclusion, that the reasons which in

combination lead me to that position, are conveniently summarised in the reasons assigned by

the Board in paragraph 11 of its outline dated the 16th of March, 2007.

MUIR J: I agree with the reasons of the Chief Justice and with the order he proposes.

I consider the Board's approach to the application to be a sensible one, namely that final

determination should await the expiration of the bond.

DOUGLAS J: I agree with the reasons of the Chief Justice and of Justice Muir.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Those are the orders made by the Court.