XY (a pseudonym) v Law Society Northern Territory - [2024] NTSC 32

CITATION:XY (a pseudonym) v Law Society Northern Territory [2024] NTSC 32
IN THE MATTER OF:
The Legal Profession Act 2006 (NT)

IN THE MATTER OF:
An application by XY (a pseudonym) for admission to the Legal Profession

PARTIES:XY (a pseudonym)
v

LAW SOCIETY NORTHERN TERRITORY

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Northern Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:2023-00291-SC
DELIVERED:  24 April 2024
HEARING DATE:  12 April 2024
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ
CATCHWORDS:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Summary disposal – Dismissal of proceedings
Application for summary dismissal of application for admission as a legal practitioner – Whether frequency and content of communications with the Court and the Law Society render applicant unfit for admission – Whether behaviour during the course of directions hearings demonstrates unfitness for admission – Irresistible inference that applicant presently unfit for admission as a legal practitioner – Application for admission dismissed.
Legal Profession Act 2006 (NT) ss 11, 25, 30, 32, 34, 41, 42, 95
Connop v Law Society Northern Territory [2016] NTSC 38, Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127, Legal Practice Complaints Committee v Chin (2012) 81 SR (WA) 150, New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279, New South Wales Bar Association v Murphy (2002) 55 NSWLR 23, Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v Montenegro [2015] NSWCA 409, Re Zita [2022] VSC 354, referred to.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel
Applicant:  Self-represented
Respondent:  TJ Scotter
Solicitors
Applicant:  Self-represented
Respondent:  Law Society Northern Territory
Judgment category classification:      B
Judgment ID Number:     Gra2408      Gra2408
Number of pages:     86

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
XY (a pseudonym) v Law Society Northern Territory [2024] NTSC 32

No. 2023-00291-SC
BETWEEN:

XY (a pseudonym)
Applicant

AND:

LAW SOCIETY NORTHERN TERRITORY
Respondent

CORAM: GRANT CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 24 April 2024)

The substantive proceedings involve an application to the Supreme Court for admission to the legal profession under the Legal Profession Act 2006 (NT). The Law Society Northern Territory (‘Law Society’) has sought summary judgment on the ground that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the application for admission. The basis for the application is that the frequency and content of the applicant’s email communications to the Law Society and the Court during the prosecution of the application, and her conduct in the course of directions hearings in the proceeding, give rise to the irresistible inference that the applicant is not fit for admission as a legal practitioner.
Procedural history and legislative context
On 7 February 2023, the applicant filed an originating motion seeking an order for admission to the legal profession. An affidavit made by the applicant on 7 February 2023 was filed in support of the application. That application was made pursuant to s 25 of the Legal Profession Act, which provides relevantly that a person may apply to the Supreme Court to be admitted as a local lawyer, and that the Court may admit the person as a local lawyer if the Court is satisfied that the person is eligible for admission to the legal profession and a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession.
On 14 February 2023, the Chair of the Legal Practitioners Admission Board (‘the Board’) referred the issue of whether or not the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession for determination by the Supreme Court pursuant to s 32(1) of the Legal Profession Act. That section provided relevantly that the Board may refer the issue of whether or not an applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the Supreme Court for decision if, in the Board’s opinion, it would be appropriate for the Court to consider the issue. That referral made reference to the applicant’s previous diagnosis of and hospitalisation for bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder, and to information the applicant provided by way of explanation concerning an incident in her earlier employment involving the provision of false information to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
The matter first came before the Court for directions on 16 March 2023. The Law Society appeared at that mention and the applicant appeared to represent herself by audio-visual link from Alice Springs. After the Court had explained why the application for admission had been referred to the Court and the purpose of the directions hearing, the applicant gave a number of inconsistent indications about her intentions to pursue the application. She first raised the matter in the following terms:
APPLICANT: I am not even sure why it's going to hearing. Like I've asked for this application to be withdrawn, so - anyway.
HIS HONOUR:   Sorry, for the affidavit to be - - -
APPLICANT:   I'm just - I'm going through a lot of family violence at the moment so like I've asked for this to be - this application to be withdrawn because I've got a lot going on.
HIS HONOUR:   All right, so you want to withdraw your application for admission at this point in time, sort out those matters and then give some consideration to whether you are going to make a further application at some time in the future, is that the case?
APPLICANT:   I'm not really sure.
HIS HONOUR:   Well, who have you told that you wish to withdraw the application?
APPLICANT: I said it a couple of times, like "Can I just get refunded for my - like filing letter."
HIS HONOUR:   So that's the roadblock if you like, in terms of withdrawing the application? If you get your filing fee refunded you will withdraw the application, is that the case?
APPLICANT:   Maybe. I'm not quite sure how it all works, like because I'm going through quite a lot of family violence, how that all pans out.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes, I understand that.
APPLICANT:   So do you like want evidence - do you want evidence of all that?
HIS HONOUR:   No, that's not relevant to the application for admission or the assessment of the suitability matters. But really, it's your application - - -
APPLICANT:   Sorry - sorry - can I just explain - sorry - can I explain? Because I obviously speak to my psychiatrist quite regularly, he knows everything that is going on. He's like, "Yes, you're being harassed?---Yes". "You're not dealing with it well?‑‑‑Yes." But, you know, the medication can't help that. Obviously I go to counselling, they say the same thing. Obviously I'm not sleeping well so I've got a doctor's appointment because I want to get some sleeping tablets so I don't know if that's like what you want when it's about the inability - if you want all the evidence of the family violence.
HIS HONOUR:   No. I don't think the family violence bears on the inability but there is a question, I suppose, of your mental state, whether the conditions are still in complete remission, whether you are subject to any medication regime at the moment, those sorts of questions - - -
APPLICANT:   No.
HIS HONOUR:   - - - are probably relevant to inability.[1]
There followed a number of exchanges in relation to the applicant’s options in terms of pursuing the application:
HIS HONOUR:   Look, it is really, in the first instance, a matter for you whether you want to press the application now or whether you want to defer it. The court can't have it hanging around without resolution forever if you like. I am prepared to give you – given your present circumstances – some latitude and to adjourn the matter for a period of some months to allow you to sort out your personal circumstances at the moment.
Alternatively, if you say that you want to withdraw the application and make application at some time in the future, I will do that and I will also speak to the registrar, who is in court here this morning, to see whether there is any possibility of a refund of the filing fee.
Is that possible, Madam Registrar?   Yes, apparently that is possible, so if you want to withdraw the application, sort out your personal details and then come back later on when you are ready, the registrar will refund your filing fee for the matter. So it is really in your hands, [NAME REDACTED] as to how you want to proceed.   You can withdraw now, get the filing fee refunded to you and apply when you are ready or I will adjourn this application for a period of time, relatively short – perhaps three or four months – and then come back and see where you are, but I can't leave it hanging around unresolved. So they are the options. Do you want to withdraw - - -
APPLICANT:   The thing is - - -
HIS HONOUR:   Yes?
APPLICANT:   Yes, the thing is so I'm really trying to solve the family violence thing and I really want to get my money out of my family where - like they've got like $60,000 of mine so maybe if I am doing the disability discrimination claim at the same time as this I don't know which looks better.
HIS HONOUR:   What do you mean "which looks better"?
APPLICANT:   I did ask my family if they wanted to join today just so, you know, we could resolve it now but they have obviously declined.
HIS HONOUR:   Well, sorry, you know that this court doesn't deal with the disability discrimination claim. That's a different court.
APPLICANT:   Yes, I know it will be Federal, yes, I know.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes, all right. So there is no point having them involved here today, but I am not sure what the interaction between this application and those proceedings is. I have detailed to you what your options are here. You can apply for an adjournment and I will adjourn it for a finite period of time or you can indicate to me that you are withdrawing the application, in which case it will be dismissed and the registrar will refund the filing fee and you can make further application once you have sorted out your personal circumstances. They are your two choices presenting today in relation to this application, or the third choice is you can say, "Well, let's get it on for hearing" and I will list it for hearing.
APPLICANT:   I think it's probably best like let's just get this over and done with so maybe just list it for hearing and then if you guys - obviously like if my application is not successful then that obviously might help me with extra compensation and disability discrim.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes.
APPLICANT:   You guys have gone all fuzzy. I don't know why.
HIS HONOUR:   Look, when you are addressing a court you address the court as, "Your Honour". That is something you should know. You don't address the court as "you guys". So take that as a starting tip in relation to your application.
Now, the other thing is, you don't press this application as some means of ramping up your application for compensation for disability discrimination. You either want to make and press an application for admission at this point in time or you want to defer the matter until you have sorted out your personal circumstances. Now, do you want time to think about that or do you want to make that decision now?
APPLICANT:   Yes. No, no, your Honour, I would really like just to - like obviously I really want to get a job so that's why I've put in my application.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes.
APPLICANT: So I can start (inaudible). So that's why I would really like this to be like - you know, happen quite quickly.[2]
Both the Court and the Law Society took that as an indication that the applicant wished to continue with her application for admission. The Law Society then indicated that it did not have copies of the Board’s referral to the Court or the correspondence passing between the Board and the applicant, and sought access to that material. The Law Society indicated further that there may be other material and information that it would need to obtain in relation to the incident involving the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the applicant’s current medical status. The Law Society also flagged the possibility that it would make application for an order that the applicant be medically assessed. The power to make an order for a health assessment was said to derive from the fact that s 32 of the Legal Profession Act provided that the Court has the same powers as the Board to deal with an application for admission, and that s 95 of the Legal Profession Act provided that the relevant authority may require an applicant for admission to undergo a health assessment by a person appointed by the relevant authority. The term ‘relevant authority’ was defined to mean, for an application for admission, the Board.
The Court then made programming orders for the provision of the relevant documentation to the Law Society, and for the applicant to file and serve on the Law Society a final version of her further draft affidavit dated 1 March 2023 in the event that she proposed to rely on that affidavit in her application. The Court adjourned the directions hearing to 17 April 2023.
When the matter resumed on 17 April 2023, the applicant made submissions objecting to the Law Society’s application to require her to undergo a health assessment and asserting an entitlement to have her legal representation paid for by the Board or some other body. As best as could be discerned, the applicant made the following contentions.
First, the applicant contended that the Supreme Court could not hear and determine whether or not she is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the Supreme Court, and is limited to directing the Board to make certain enquiries of the applicant and hearing representations from the Law Society. The submission seemed to follow it is only in the event that the Board makes an adverse determination and the applicant lodges an appeal against a determination to the Supreme Court that the applicant is permitted or required to be heard by the Court. That submission was obviously misconceived. Section 32 of the Legal Profession Act provides that on a referral from the Board the Court may make the order or declaration it considers appropriate. The nature of the judicial process requires the Court to hear and determine whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted. That hearing necessarily involves an opportunity for the applicant to be heard and to call evidence in relation to relevant issues, and s 34(3) of the Legal Profession Act provides the Law Society with statutory standing to be represented and heard on the hearing of a reference.
Second, the applicant contended that the Court was obliged to arrange and pay for the costs of her representation in the reference. That submission was put on the basis of ss 41 and 42 of the Legal Profession Act. The question of the applicant’s legal representation had already been the subject of the following discussion during the directions hearing conducted on 16 March 2023:
MS MCINTYRE:   Yes. Thank you, your Honour. The Law Society does often recommend to applicants that they do have legal representation in these matters because it is of assistance to them for their application.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes.
MS MCINTYRE: There are some local lawyers that I am aware of that can do these matters in a pro bono or in a less expensive way.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes.
MS MCINTYRE:   So I would suggest that [NAME REDACTED] look - or I can give her a couple of law firms that have represented applicants previously and she could approach those firms to attempt to secure some representation.
HIS HONOUR:   All right. Well, what I might do is leave that - - -
APPLICANT:   Well, sorry, your Honour - sorry.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes?
APPLICANT:   So I approached Ward Keller and - because Ward Keller did my criminal conviction and they more or less said "No, don't have experience in that." I also approached CAWLS, they were not very nice to me.
HIS HONOUR:   Anyway, that's - - -
APPLICANT:   I'm not quite sure - - -
HIS HONOUR:   This is the point Ms McIntyre is making, there are particular firms that are prepared to do those things on either pro bono terms or reduced rates and I don't think she was referring to Ward Keller Alice Springs.[3]
It became apparent during the course of the directions hearing on 17 April 2023 that the applicant had made no attempt to pursue the recommendations made by the Law Society for the purpose of engaging legal representation, and had chosen instead to pursue the argument that her representation should be paid for from the Fidelity Fund. The relevant exchange was as follows:
MR LIVERIS:   In fact, I’m sorry, your Honour, I might, if I may. The confusion may be in the letters that I referred to earlier from Ms McIntyre at the Law Society, we have suggested that [NAME REDACTED] might engage legal representation. That’s a separate issue to health assessment and programming orders, and so forth.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes.
MR LIVERIS:   We have provided her with the names of some solicitors in the Northern Territory who have some experience dealing with admissions matters and things of that kind.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes, I recall Ms McIntyre raised that on the last occasion, yes.
MR LIVERIS:   Yes. And that may be where the confusion is. So, we have done no more than we can do which is to make that suggestion to [NAME REDACTED].
HIS HONOUR:   Yes, all right, thank you.
APPLICANT:   Your Honour, I think before I went and source legal representation I would like to know who would be paying for this. And as this legislation states that these costs can come from the fidelity fund.
HIS HONOUR:   “The Supreme Court may order the costs of counsel appointed to assist in an application for admission to the legal profession under the Act as certified by the Solicitor for the Northern Territory be paid out of the Fidelity Fund.” That is, at the end of the day depending on what the result is. There is no mechanism in the legislation or otherwise for this court to order that you have your legal representation paid for at this point in the proceedings.
APPLICANT:   But, your Honour, what I am trying to establish is where is says, “assist to appoint”, I would think that that was because I would have a material inability to practise. So, for example, if the health assessment does say I have a material inability to practise, then a lawyer would be appointed.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, well, I’m telling you that is not what s 42 is doing.
APPLICANT:   Yes, I am just suggesting this because this is how the matter could run. And so if a lawyer is appointed because they need to resolve these adverse other matters, we wouldn’t be contributing these other adverse matters purely to a mental illness.
HIS HONOUR:   Are you talking about the appointment of counsel assisting the court in the matter or are you talking about the appointment of somebody to represent you?
APPLICANT:   So, yes, that is what I’m saying. That, say I had a material inability to practise. So, then you would appoint a lawyer to represent the application as per, like, you know, to check are these adverse matters?
HIS HONOUR:   So, not a person representing you, a counsel assisting. Is that what you’re saying?
APPLICANT:   Exactly. Because you wouldn’t be just leaving the adverse matters lingering there. Great. I have a material inability to practise. The adverse matters still need to be resolved.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes. But really the Law Society is the contradictor in relation to those matters – effectively a counsel assisting given its statutory role and responsibilities. And your legal representation is a matter for you, [NAME REDACTED]. But I think that some of those names that have been provided by the Law Society, some of those people might be prepared to take it on a pro bono basis or some form of speculative basis.
Is that your understanding, Mr Liveris?
MR LIVERIS:   Yes, your Honour. I understand generally that there have been occasions in the past where practitioners locally have been prepared to assist applicants for admission and referrals of this kind on a reduced-fee basis or some other less commercial arrangement.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes.
MR LIVERIS:   But we have encouraged [NAME REDACTED] to make those enquiries.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes.
MR LIVERIS:   That is as far as we feel we can go.
APPLICANT:   I have made enquiries. I have spoken to several practitioners here in Alice Springs. They are not willing to take on the matter.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes, all right. Well - - -
APPLICANT:   And I think it’s embarrassing that you would want me to then start ringing around all these other people when I have two lawyers currently engaged that are also uhm-ing and ah-ing about what to do.[4]

As was indicated during the course of those exchanges, ss 41 and 42 of the Legal Profession Act provide relevantly that the Court may appoint counsel assisting on a reference and may order the costs of counsel assisting to be paid out of the Fidelity Fund. Those provisions do not confer on an applicant the entitlement to have her or his legal representation arranged and paid for by the Court. Nor does the Court ordinarily appoint counsel assisting in references of this nature, because the Law Society customarily adopts the role of proper contradictor.
Third, the applicant appeared to contend that neither the Board nor the Court was entitled to consider questions about her mental health for the purpose of determining the reference, and were limited to considering the inability issues identified in her affidavit material such as the incident with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, a Centrelink debt and a drink-driving conviction. To the extent that submission was made, it was also misconceived. There is no doubt that an inquiry into fitness and suitability for admission may extend to psychiatric or psychological disorder. The Court attempted to explain that to the applicant in the following exchange:
HIS HONOUR: [NAME REDACTED], I am going to be as delicate as I can about this. The reason the Law Society is seeking a person to be appointed to conduct a health assessment is not to inquire into the questions of Centrelink overpayments or representations you might have made to the Department of Immigration. They’re a separate issue in relation to fitness and propriety. I suspect that the Law Society’s concern is that you have an underlying psychiatric condition for which you are not presently medicated and which is not presently controlled, and that is the purpose of the assessment. It’s not - - -
APPLICANT:   Okay, do you know what happens next? I go to a health assessor. They say, “You’re not delusional, you’re not manic. Yeah, you’re drinking too much sending inappropriate emails which you are more than aware of. You have complete insight into what you are doing.”
HIS HONOUR:   Well - - -
APPLICANT:   “You have been asked to even stop sending emails and to have structure to your court hearing. But this is not being, this is not (inaudible) saying this is okay. You also have an issue with someone who is claiming you do have a disability and maybe you do want to act a bit rash and say, ‘Yeah, okay, I’ve got a disability. Now, I would like some leave for my disability.’”
HIS HONOUR:   Yes, well - - -
APPLICANT:   But that assessor is just sitting there going, “Well, what I am meant to do?” My psychiatrist described it as a cluster fuck.
HIS HONOUR: [NAME REDACTED], that is the purpose of the assessment. And in terms of adverse background and those sorts of things - - -.
APPLICANT:   Yes, I’ve been to three.
HIS HONOUR:   In terms of adverse background - - -
APPLICANT:   (Inaudible).
HIS HONOUR:   Please don’t interrupt me.
APPLICANT:   (Inaudible).
HIS HONOUR:   Please don’t interrupt me. In terms of adverse background and those sorts of things, you will be able to explain that at length for as long as you need to the psychiatrist who is appointed, if one is in fact appointed. So, you need have no concern about that. It’s not for me to conduct the assessment. It’s for the psychiatrist to do it. So, let us just come back when the Law Society has put on affidavit material and - - -
APPLICANT:   (Inaudible).
HIS HONOUR:   - - - its information. You can put anything in response you want and then we can come back and assess who the appropriate person to conduct the assessment and how that assessment should be conducted. All right?
APPLICANT:   But I’m just saying it’s the exact same information that I present to you. “Hey, in 2013 I responded completely irrationally to a situation with Immigration. I went off with the pixies. I became paranoid. I became delusional. I completely understand that. I completely understand how inappropriate that response was and I completely understand it was due to an underlying health condition. Like, you know, you don’t think I’m embarrassed? Do you know how fucken bizarre that shit was? Like, I am so embarrassed by that. Like, and I shouldn’t be ashamed – anyway.
And at the current point I am the one who’s saying, “Hey, I’m feeling really depressed at the moment. Maybe I need an antidepressant because I really get depressed.” And everyone keeps saying to me, “Why don’t you just hold off? See if your sleeping returns to normal. Here’s some Diazepam if it doesn’t.” And I say, “Okay, I will.” Look, now it’s good. My sleeping is back to normal. I didn’t need Diazepam.
I would like the matter of my background to be resolved though so I don’t have to constantly sit there and think and write about trauma. And I have that prepared right now and I just want that out of the way.[5]
The applicant was not at that stage prepared to consent to an order for assessment by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner, or at least unwilling to give a clear indication of consent, and the Court made programming orders for the Law Society to file an application for the appointment of a person to conduct an assessment pursuant to s 95 of the Legal Profession Act and any affidavit material in support, and for the applicant to file any affidavit material in response should she wish to do so. The application was listed for hearing on 26 May 2023.
To that point in the proceedings, the applicant had been sending an inordinate number of emails which were purportedly in relation to her application. Those emails were variously addressed or copied to the Law Society, counsel briefed to appear on behalf of the Law Society, the Chief Justice’s Associate, and on occasion to the solicitor who had originally been engaged by the applicant to prepare her application for admission. As will be described further below, the applicant had been cautioned by the Law Society to moderate both the frequency and content of her email communications, and to desist from including the Chief Justice’s Associate in those communications if they related to inter partes matters.
The applicant appeared to acknowledge the inappropriateness of that conduct during the course of the directions hearing on 17 April 2023, and claimed to have complete insight into that matter. However, those cautions had no appreciable effect. One of those emails which was sent on 25 May 2023, and copied to the Associate, stated that the applicant was considering withdrawing her application for admission. That matter was the subject of the following exchange at the commencement of the directions hearing on 26 May 2023:
HIS HONOUR:   All right. I have got this most recent email from yesterday afternoon where you express difficulty with your current circumstances in terms of your house burning down, and I think some difficulty with some domestic violence problems.
And you say there that you are considering withdrawing this application, or putting an end to this process, and making an application in another jurisdiction once you have got legal representation or legal confirmation that you are fit and proper to practice. Is that still your position this morning?
APPLICANT:   Your Honour, I am really not quite sure. I have to wait for the insurance company to let me know, because they are organising my rent the next 12 months. So they said that it is fine if I would like to go to Darwin. But outside of Darwin, they are not sure.
HIS HONOUR:   All right. Well, what do you want to do in relation to your application for admission? Is that something that you are still pressing, notwithstanding your current circumstances?
APPLICANT:   Your Honour, I think as you are aware, I was not the one pressing this application to start with. I graduated with my law degree. I applied to non-legal jobs, and asked my father if I should apply for legal jobs, or if I should apply for admission. I then started at the College of Law. I asked the College of Law what they thought. They said I should get legal advice. I got legal advice. They pressed me to make this application.
So now I am sitting here. My house has burned down, and I would really like to leave Alice Springs. And now I have to wait for the insurance company.
HIS HONOUR:   So in relation to your application for admission, do you wish to continue with that application for admission, which has now taken the form of a reference by the Board to this court?
APPLICANT:   Well, the insurance company has not got back to me yet about where I can move to. You need to understand like this is quite distressing for me. Apparently it was on the NT News, and all this sort of stuff, that, you know, I was homeless and all this stuff.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes. I am not sure I understand the connection between the insurance company and whether or not you are going to proceed with this application.
APPLICANT:   I have asked the insurance company if I can move to – I do not know - Sydney or Adelaide. And they have said, “Well, the insurance policy says the surrounding area. So you are allowed to move to Darwin, and that is about it.” That is what they have said at the moment. Obviously I cannot afford rent. I am organising my house. So I need to rely on the insurance company to pay this rent.
HIS HONOUR:   All right.
APPLICANT:   And they said they have accepted my insurance application. So now I just have to wait for them to decide what rental I can now live in while they rebuild my house, or do whatever they do to my house.
HIS HONOUR:   All right. But as matters presently stand, I take it then that you want to proceed with your application for admission?
APPLICANT:   Yes, why not? My house cannot burn down again.
HIS HONOUR: Very well. Well, what we are here for today is an application by the Law Society for orders pursuant to s 95 of the Legal Profession Act, that you undergo a health assessment with Dr Stephen Allnutt on 4 July 2023 at 10 am by audiovisual link. And of course, the cost of that to be paid by the Law Society.
Do you consent to orders or direction in those terms? Or do you oppose the making of that order or direction?
APPLICANT:   As I have said the whole time, I consent. Hopefully the Law Society then will investigate the lawyers that pushed me to make this application.
HIS HONOUR:   That pushed you to make the application?
APPLICANT:   Yes.
HIS HONOUR:   Well, nobody is forcing you to proceed with your application. So if you want to withdraw the application, you are quite entitled to do that. So I am not sure what you mean about being pushed or forced to make the application, and I have given you that opportunity on a number of occasions this morning to indicate whether you want to withdraw it or not.
APPLICANT:   I do not mind. It was just people were assisting me with domestic violence. So there was obviously the domestic violence issue, and my admission to practice issue. So I was getting assistance on both of those issues. So I was not really going to just go, I want to quit this lawyer that is helping me with the domestic violence.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes. All right.
APPLICANT:   But I will follow what this lawyer would like me to do which is apply for admission. So I will do that.
HIS HONOUR:   You will do that?
APPLICANT:   Like if it is up to me. If it is helping me to get out of the domestic violence, I would continue to do my admission process, which is what they requested. I am guessing they have not contacted the Law Society saying that they had terminated the agreement.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes. Well, all I am seeking to make plain to you, [NAME REDACTED], is that you cannot be compelled or otherwise forced to press the application. It is a matter for you whether you want to press it, so. And I take it from what you have just said that yes, you want to continue with the application, and that you consent to undergo a health assessment with Dr Allnutt at 10 am on 4 July 2023.
APPLICANT:   If it helps me get out of domestic violence, yes, I consent.[6]
After some further submissions from both the Law Society and the applicant, the Court made orders requiring the applicant to undergo a health assessment with a psychiatrist on 4 July 2023, and listed the matter for internal review on 25 August 2023. Section 95(3) of the Legal Profession Act provided that if the relevant authority determines to require an applicant to undergo an health assessment, the authority must give the applicant an information notice that includes the name and qualifications of the person appointed to conduct the assessment, and a specified date, time and place for the assessment. Accordingly, when the formal orders were taken out they were accompanied by an information notice in the following terms:
INFORMATION NOTICE
Decision:
1.    [NAME REDACTED] (‘the applicant’) is required to undergo a health assessment by Dr Stephen Allnutt MBChB, FRCPC, FRANZCP, Psychiatrist, by audiovisual link at 10 AM (Australian Central Standard Time) on 4 July 2023.
Reasons for decision:
2. On 14 February 2023, the Legal Practitioners Admission Board (‘the Board’) referred the issue of whether or not the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the Supreme Court pursuant to s 32(1) of the Legal Profession Act. That referral drew attention, inter alia, to the applicant’s previous diagnoses of and hospitalisation for bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder.
3. Section 95 of the Legal Profession Act provides that the ‘relevant authority’ may require an applicant for admission to undergo a health assessment if it believes the applicant may have a material inability. The ‘relevant authority’ for an applicant for admission is defined as the ‘Admission Board’. Section 32 of the Legal Profession Act provides that the Supreme Court has the same powers as the Board to deal with an application referred to it under that section.
4.    By application dated 2 May 2023, the Law Society sought an order that the applicant undergo a health assessment by Dr Stephen Allnutt. The material relied upon by the Law Society as giving rise to a belief that the applicant may have a material inability is annexed to the affidavit of Aislinn McIntyre sworn on 2 May 2023.
5.    That material discloses that: (a) the applicant was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder in 2013 and hospitalised for mental health difficulties in 2013, 2014 and 2017; (b) the applicant deferred her legal studies in September 2016 because of depression and emerging psychosis; (c) the applicant was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder in August 2017; (d) the applicant ceased taking medication for her mental health conditions in or about 2021; (e) the applicant has stated in various documents that during the course of 2022 and into 2023 she experienced mental health issues and that her family members were concerned about her mental health; and (f) between 27 February and 27 April 2023 the applicant emailed the Supreme Court and the Law Society on at least 134 separate occasions, the content and tenor of which is described in annexures AM7 and AM8 to the affidavit of Aislinn McIntyre.
6.    The Court concluded on the basis of those matters that the conditions for requiring a health assessment were satisfied.
Rights of appeal:
7. Section 95(5) of the Legal Profession Act provides that the subject person may appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision within 28 days after the day the Information Notice is given to the subject person. Given that the decision has been made by the Supreme Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction and/or the statutory powers of the relevant authority, any appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.
In accordance with those orders, on 5 July 2023 the applicant was clinically evaluated by the psychiatrist who had been appointed for that purpose. Following that evaluation the psychiatrist requested some further background information from the Law Society. In response to that request, the Law Society issued subpoenas to four hospitals at which the applicant had previously been treated. A directions hearing was conducted on 7 September 2023, at which the Law Society sought leave to inspect and copy the documents produced in response to those subpoenas. Leave was granted to both the Law Society and the applicant for that purpose.
The psychiatrist who had been appointed to conduct the health assessment prepared a report of that assessment dated 6 November 2023. Although the opinions expressed in that assessment do not form part of the basis of this application for summary judgment brought by the Law Society, and the author of the report has not been examined or cross-examined in relation to those opinions, parts of the report provide some possible explanation for the nature of the applicant’s presentation during the course of directions hearings, and for the frequency and content of her email communications. The report provided in part:
I engaged in discussion about the multiple emails that she was sending. She said that she was sitting alone, and she had no support when she was sending them. Her lawyer was not taking calls properly and she was sending emails out of frustration regarding her current circumstances. She said that she also sent emails because she wanted to be honest, to let people know exactly where she was. She had made numerous requests regarding the investigation, she was upset because she had been told that any communications would be confidential but instead, they were sent to the court. She got a letter regarding her application without any suitable reasons, which required the court to ask the Law Society to provide reasons. She said emails related to the grounds for appeal, the delayed timeframes. All of these factors caused her frustration, and she believed that the emails might then trigger some response with regard to her circumstances. She was also trying to be super honest and candid. Some of the emails she said she wrote when intoxicated and then would read them later and be embarrassed about them. She stated that she drank alcohol three to four nights a week and then she might drink between one and two bottles a night.
…
Having regard to the information provided, there are grounds to conclude that she suffers from a diagnosable mental illness, namely a schizoaffective disorder, characterised by fluctuations in mood with depressive symptoms and at times hypomanic symptoms. Associated with these symptoms she does experience ideas of reference, possible auditory and possible visual phenomena, and paranoid ideas suggestive of associated psychosis. A differential diagnosis would include a bipolar affective disorder. She has a history of being admitted [on] several occasions, particularly in relation to stress, at times with a mixed mood syndrome of symptoms.
…
While her mental illness has gone into relative remission or has improved, unfortunately she has continued to pursue a course of communication, despite the deleterious effect that that might have on this application and despite (as I understand it), cautions and requests to desist, which raises ongoing concern about residual symptoms aggravated by alcohol use and her capacity to conform her behaviour in a professional context. This raises concern about her capacity to manage herself in her professional relationships and places her reputation at risk. This is, on balance, consistent with a current and impaired incapacity to engage in legal practice as a consequence of her mental impairment and disability.
Following receipt of that report the matter was fixed for a directions hearing on 16 November 2023 and the applicant was advised of that listing accordingly. However, the applicant did not appear at the directions hearing on that day. In the lead up to the directions hearing, the applicant sent a chain of emails addressed to the Chief Justice’s Associate and copied to the civil registry, the Law Society, counsel briefed to appear on behalf of the Law Society, the psychiatrist who conducted the health assessment and the applicant’s treating medical practitioner. The full chain of emails sent by the applicant, which commenced on the evening of 15 November 2023 and concluded at 7:51 AM on 16 November 2023, ran to 85 pages in length. That email chain consisted exclusively of emails sent by the applicant. By way of example, the emails sent between 6:27 AM and 7:51 AM on 16 November 2023 were as follows:
From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 7:51 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Thanks
Your honour,? Not fAir I'm drunk

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 7:25 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thanks
Someone is cracking it atv me? Cause I'm going back to bed?

From: [NAME REDACTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 7:18 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thanks
CJ please be nice! I'll be drunk? But I'm passing out soon

From: [NAME REDACTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 7:14 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thanks
I need to go back to bed? CJ is going to crack it that I'm drunk!

From: [NAME REDACTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 7:11 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thanks
You all do get? I'm so angry!!

From: [NAME REDACTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 7:08 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thanks
But after India? I realised dating was about charm?

From: [NAME REDACTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 7:07 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thanks
The today show are talking about schoolies? That's aschoolies pic? Where I spent a week told I was fat!

From: [NAME REDACTED]>
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 7:02 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thanks
That’s why mum kept the pics? So when I had kids I could say? Does mum look fat or just sad cause everyone calls her fat?

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 7:00 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thanks
You have to admit? It was bit rough to call me fat? But that's all I heard at that weight?

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 6:57 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thanks
Someone is being funny? Sarah has the boob tube thing going on?
Loving my drunk misygonist drunk rants?

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 6:30 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thanks
I think the today show must be annoyed about the whole siregard your first family thing? Trying to find anything to attack 'freedom' people on?

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 6:27 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Thanks
Morning!
Gosh it's annoying watching the today show try to be tit for tat but not understand social dynamics!
Like it was outrage when Scomo went on holidays during bush fires!
Cause he went on holidays!
Albo has gone on work business! APEC summit is really important! And there is no crisis at home! None of those refugees have gone and lit a fire etc

At the directions hearing, the Court adjourned the matter for further directions to 30 January 2024 and gave the parties liberty to apply. Those orders were communicated to the applicant by the Associate at 10:05 AM on 16 November 2023. The email communications sent by the applicant between 2:44 PM and 3:18 PM on 16 November 2023 were as follows:
From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 3:18 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of [NAME REDACTED] (2023-00291-SC) - Orders
You honour, people shouldn’t change their drink?! Like you killed me with this vodka shit!! Dying!! That’s why I knew as an adult to just drink wine! Teeth are dying?? But I am not! Vodka I may!

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 3:15 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of [NAME REDACTED] (2023-00291-SC) - Orders
Your honour, I am dying! I haven’t vomitted this much since a kid!!

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 3:14 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of [NAME REDACTED] (2023-00291-SC) - Orders
But seriously you honour! This is why I don’t drink vodka! It makes me very very sick! Look I missed our chat this morning! But I can’t see any orders about the health assessment? Despite the fact I’m dying!!

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 3:13 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of [NAME REDACTED] (2023-00291-SC) - Orders
and yes you can laugh! I’m dying! But woke up at bottleshop opening time

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 3:12 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of [NAME REDACTED] (2023-00291-SC) - Orders
You honour I've seriously been poisoned! I’m about to go to ED!

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 3:02 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Listings <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of [NAME REDACTED] (2023-00291-SC) - Orders
Jack! Can you send the orders to my inbox! It's disappeared,

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 3:00 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Listings <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of [NAME REDACTED] (2023-00291-SC) - Orders
How you got me to sleep that much??

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 2:58 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Listings <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of [NAME REDACTED] (2023-00291-SC) - Orders
From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 2:55 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Listings <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of [NAME REDACTED] (2023-00291-SC) - Orders
Seriously! Why are we appearing on the30th??
CJ being annoying?

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 2:53 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Listings <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of [NAME REDACTED] (2023-00291-SC) - Orders
How's this happen??? Like I passed out at 9pm.
Now I can’t even change the remote channel! A and you’re telling me it’s 3pm&

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 2:44 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Listings <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of [NAME REDACTED] (2023-00291-SC) - Orders
How did I know you were wasting my time!!

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2023 2:44 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Listings <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: In the matter of [NAME REDACTED] (2023-00291-SC) - Orders
Well what the fuck? Why should I appear?? There isn’t even a time for the report??

On 18 January 2024, the Law Society filed and served a document titled ‘Outline of Objections to the Originating Motion dated 7 February 2023’. That document recognised that the Law Society was entitled to make representations to the Supreme Court in relation to the application for admission, and that procedural fairness required it to give notice to the applicant in the event it intended to oppose the application and notice of the grounds for that opposition. The document stated that the Law Society objected to the application for admission on the following grounds:
(a)volume, frequency and content of emails sent by the applicant – whether the person is currently of good fame and character;
(b)knowingly assisting a person to provide false information to the Department of Immigration – whether the person is currently of good fame and character;
(c)failure by the applicant to disclose that she was subject to an Employment Suitability Screening by the Department of Immigration in 2015 which resulted in a finding that she was not suitable from an integrity and character perspective to have non-public access to the Department’s resources – whether the person is currently of good fame and character;
(d)Centrelink Debts – whether the person is currently of good fame and character;
(e)history of drug and alcohol use – whether the person is currently of good fame and character;
(f)whether the person has been convicted of driving a motor vehicle with a high range blood alcohol content and careless driving in 2020;
(g)whether the person currently has a material inability to engage in legal practice by reason of her mental condition; and
(h)whether the person is a fit and proper person to be admitted and/or of good fame and character having regard to a tendency to make or threaten complaints and/or make allegations or assertions without proper foundation, an inability to deal appropriately with confidential information, a tendency to give false or misleading information, a tendency to disregard legal obligations and a tendency to misunderstand the evidentiary value of an affidavit.
The Law Society’s application for summary judgment is concerned only with the first ground particularised in the Outline of Objections; that is, the volume and content of the applicant’s email communications to the Law Society and the Court during the prosecution of the application. The Law Society’s application also attaches to that ground the applicant’s conduct in the course of directions hearings in the proceeding. The Law Society contends that those two matters in and of themselves give rise to the irresistible inference that the applicant is not fit for admission as a legal practitioner. The Court has not received evidence or submissions in relation to the other grounds of objection particularised in the Outline of Objections, and they form no part of the present consideration.
Following the filing and service of that document, the applicant did appear at the directions hearing conducted on 30 January 2024. At that time, the applicant initially submitted that the health assessment was ‘seven months old’ and no longer current or relevant to her application for admission. The applicant then made a complaint against the solicitor with carriage of the matter on behalf of the Law Society in the following terms:
APPLICANT:   I am just really upset because Ms McIntyre called me saying, “Oh, we’re so worried about your health and giving you this report - we’re so worried.” And I said, “But you have consent to contact my doctor if you have that worry, so why haven’t you contacted my doctor? I've given you that consent - why are you calling me?” And then I said to her, “I just want to leave now. Alice Springs is a very dangerous place and I've been paid out my compensation. I really would like to leave, so that’s what I'm doing”. And she hung up the phone on me - and I just thought that is so rude. You’re the one saying you’re concerned for my welfare - you’ve hung up the phone on me and you haven’t called my treating physician.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes.
APPLICANT:   I am very - finding this very problematic behaviour and I wish to lodge a complaint against the Law Society.
HIS HONOUR:   Now, [NAME REDACTED], in an email - - -
APPLICANT:   And then she wrote in her list of objections that I do not have the right to make a complaint. Yes. I do have that right. That’s a - that’s a right that every individual has is to make a complaint. You can’t put it in a list of objections that, “She’s said she’s going to make a complaint - we object to her making complaint”. Not - that’s my right. I'm very upset by this - and then she also wrote that I gave wrong information in the affidavit. I didn’t write the affidavit - a lawyer wrote it. If she’s really upset with that lawyer providing false and misleading information, she needs to contact that lawyer because I've already asked her if she could lodge a complaint on my behalf against that lawyer.[7]
It suffices to say for these purposes that the Law Society disputes the truth and accuracy of the allegations made by the applicant in that submission. It is also apparent from the material before the Court that the Law Society did not assert in a ‘list of objections’ or otherwise that the applicant did not have the right to make a complaint. The reference to another lawyer ‘providing false and misleading information’ is the continuation of an allegation made in various forms by the applicant since the commencement of the proceedings. The general thrust of that allegation is that the solicitor she engaged to advise and assist her in the preparation of the application for admission had somehow forced her to make the application and had somehow forced her to swear an affidavit in support of that application which contained untrue and/or irrelevant material.
The Court then made reference to an email which had been sent by the applicant the previous evening indicating an intention to withdraw the application for admission. Leaving aside various digressions into unrelated matters, that exchange in relation to the withdrawal of the application proceeded as follows:
HIS HONOUR:   Yes. Now, [NAME REDACTED], in one of the emails that I have been provided with, which was sent at 7:50 pm last night, you said you were withdrawing your application for admission and then lodge - - -
APPLICANT:   Yes, because - I want to lodge a complaint against the Law Society now. I want to withdraw this application. I want them to stop objecting and I want to complain against them. They have no evidence I have done any wrongdoing.
HIS HONOUR:    Sorry. Are you withdrawing your application for admission?
APPLICANT:   Yes. So I can lodge a complaint against them.
HIS HONOUR:   And who would you lodge that complaint with?
APPLICANT:   Well, it depends if I want to go NTCAT - NTCAT or whatever - because the Law Society didn’t take up my complaint against David Shaw - because they refused to initiate that complaint. I can lodge it with NTCAT – however, we pronounce it - in Victoria it’s VCAT and it’s very easy to pronounce. Here it’s NTCAT - whatever.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes, all right. Just let me check with - - -
APPLICANT:   Or I can lodge a discrimination claim and say, “Yes, I have a mental illness and they have done so much damage to my mental health”.
HIS HONOUR:   Just let me check with Madam Registrar who is here in court as to what - - -
APPLICANT:   Yes, like even to lodge an objection - even to lodge an objection - she’s written that I haven’t - I didn’t give the ESB decision. It’s like yes, I did. I lodged that with the board before I even lodged my affidavit. Like, she’s made so many factual incorrect errors that it’s just ridiculous now.
HIS HONOUR:   I will just check with the Registrar as to what is required formally to make a withdrawal.
Madam Registrar, is there some formal process that would be required for [NAME REDACTED] to withdraw her application for admission or is that something that is simply done by way of email to you?
THE REGISTRAR:   Simply by way of email.
HIS HONOUR:   All right.
APPLICANT:   Well, what I was going to is I was going to do is that I was going - I was going to seek leave to the High Court to request them to provide me with instructions.
HIS HONOUR:   You will go to seek leave from the High Court?
APPLICANT:   Leave from the High Court for them to provide instruction.
HIS HONOUR:   Instructions about what?
APPLICANT:   How to proceed with this matter. Because no one seems to know. Last - last – last January Mr Liveris was saying that I had no right to appeal whatsoever. That was his genuine belief. Which just seems absurd.   And I didn’t even go to the last hearing because I was told I didn’t have to go to the last hearing and then I got harassed by Ms McIntyre for not going to the last hearing when I was told I wasn’t needed to be there.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes - - -
APPLICANT:   And you did discuss a range of things at the last hearing. For example, you discussed the fact that I wouldn’t be distressed over Christmas - when clearly I was distressed over Christmas - I was very distressed because usually I spend Christmas with my family. I buy them presents. I do lots of Christmas things. So, of course, I'm going to be distressed over Christmas. So you discussed all these matters without my presence - without me being able to provide you with information - like just the fact that I'd already consented that you are to prove my treating physician position information. Ms McIntyre didn’t need to call me and harass me - she already had that consent - and she knew she had that consent.
HIS HONOUR:   So are you prepared then to send an email to Ms Holmes withdrawing your application for admission and to then pursue what other remedies you might have?
Did you hear that, [NAME REDACTED]?
APPLICANT:   No, but - so randomly some person walked across the screen - I don’t know who that was.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes, sorry. The question is, are you prepared to send an email to Ms Holmes withdrawing your application for admission and then content to pursue what other - - -
APPLICANT:   No. As I said, I'd like to first - no, I'd first like to seek leave to - from the High Court to get instructions on what to do next - because this has already taken a year. I don’t want to waste another year of my life on this.
HIS HONOUR:   So you want to leave this - - -
APPLICANT:   I want the High Court to tell me - “Yes - do you know what - do you know what - court proceedings is based on evidence.” Ms McIntyre has no evidence of you doing any wrongdoing. She’s talking about a visa from 15 years ago that she has no evidence about. She’s just working off your memory.
HIS HONOUR:   So do you want to leave this application in abeyance, do you, while you make some sort of application to the High Court - - -
APPLICANT: Well, it’s up to - it’s up to you, your Honour, if you want to start - it’s up to you, your Honour, if you would like to start basing this on evidence.
HER HONOUR:   If I would like to - - -?
APPLICANT:   Start basing this matter on evidence. Because Ms McIntyre has even written a list of objections, “Oh, she’s lied - she was 23 when she did that.” For one - I didn’t write that sentence - David Shaw wrote that sentence - and for two, we don’t know, because we don’t have any evidence that I even did anything wrong. Just because I feel like I may have done something wrong doesn’t mean I actually did something wrong. So as long as we start basing things on evidence - - -
HIS HONOUR:   That’s only one of the - one of the grounds of the Notice of Objection filed by the Law Society - - -
APPLICANT: But all that - you don’t have my sentence - you don’t have Centrelink records - you don’t have my immigration records - you don’t have the drink driving records - you have no records - you have no evidence of anything.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes, well that’s really - - -
APPLICANT:   There’s no evidence of evidence - anything.
HIS HONOUR:   It’s really a question - - -
APPLICANT:   People make mistakes - I make mistakes and Centrelink makes mistakes - we don’t know if I made a mistake or if Centrelink made a mistake. We don’t now if I made a mistake or Immigration made a mistake. Like this - like seriously, the list of objections quoted someone quoting my article. It’s like you don’t even have the original copy of your article to actually quote.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes. Really, if you’re going to - - -
APPLICANT:   Are you that lazy?
…
HIS HONOUR: [NAME REDACTED], can you tell me whether you wish to pursue your application for admission or withdraw it?
APPLICANT:   I would - and I would like to gather the evidence to be able to put onto my application - that’s why I already asked you for those subpoenas but you’ve refused - so how am I meant to proceed - without being able to gather the evidence?
HIS HONOUR:   I am not sure that you’ve made any application for the issue of a subpoena.
…
HIS HONOUR:   Yes. [NAME REDACTED], to be very frank, I think your interests are best served by withdrawing your application for admission. I think - - -
APPLICANT:   No, no, what I would like is the evidence that I have done something wrong.
HIS HONOUR: [NAME REDACTED] - - -
APPLICANT:   I am finding it very unfair that a bunch of people are saying that I've done the wrong thing when I've done nothing wrong.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes. I think that is potentially the least of your difficulties here.
APPLICANT:   Like for example - no, for example, this morning some lady set her dog on my dog. I yelled at the dog to go back and then the lady didn’t understand that I actually had saved her dog’s life - because her dog wasn’t going to get in a fight because of me. Then this lady got her partner or friend to come down the street and yell at me, “Watch your back you blah blah blah blah blah”. Now, I wasn’t in the wrong. I actually saved her dog from being attacked.
At the moment, again, we have no evidence I've done anything wrong. So why am I in trouble? Why are you saying I need to watch my back - that’s the least of my worries.   Because what have I done wrong?
HIS HONOUR:   Because your behaviour over the last period of time since you have made the application, including in your emails and your court appearances, makes it abundantly clear that at the present time you are an unsuitable person for admission to practice.
APPLICANT:   Okay.  That’s why now we can have - Ms McIntyre actually investigated the lawyer that I paid $13,000 to - and they can give me my money back.
I didn’t make this application. I did not want to be here. I was pushed into this by another lawyer.
HIS HONOUR:   I have kept on asking you whether you are prepared to withdraw your application and you will not indicate a preparedness to do so - or at least not one - - -
APPLICANT:   Because you won’t - you won’t investigate the lawyer that wrote my application - you’re refusing to - you’re refusing to - and you’re refusing to adduce evidence that I've done anything wrong.
I would have withdrawn my application on the first hearing. You’re the one who didn’t accept my withdrawal, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:   I beg your pardon?
APPLICANT:   I said at the very first hearing, “I want to withdraw”. You did not accept my withdrawal.
HIS HONOUR:   I think that is entirely wrong.
APPLICANT: That you - that’s not true. You can read the transcript, your Honour. I said, “I want to withdraw or adjourn this matter. I don’t feel mentally safe to continue this process, but I do want to get out of domestic violence, so it’s up to you.”   And you said, “Okay, so we’re continuing”.
At each hearing, I've said, “I want to withdraw”.
HIS HONOUR:   All right. Tell me now. Do you wish to withdraw this application for admission?
APPLICANT:   What I would like is to - people to investigate if I did anything wrong. So you can get the immigration files, you can speak to David Shaw - because I didn’t write the affidavit - so you can’t say, “She gave wrong information in the affidavit”. I didn’t write the affidavit.
HIS HONOUR:   Is that a yes or a no to my question?
APPLICANT: Well, it depends - well it would be a “Yes” if you say, “Yes, we will go and investigate the lawyer that wrote your affidavit”. Then of course I'll withdraw it and they will go and investigate the lawyer that wrote the affidavit.
HIS HONOUR:   Look, it’s open for you at any time to send an email to the - - -
APPLICANT:   You’re the Supreme - you’re the Chief Justice, your Honour - - -
HIS HONOUR:   Just listen to me, please. It is open to you at any time to send an email to the Registry withdrawing your application, but given your unwillingness to do so at this stage I am going to - - -
APPLICANT:   Yes, I'm going to investigate the lawyer that wrote the - okay - okay - so what - that’s the other subpoena - - -
HIS HONOUR:   - - - I am going to make orders - - -
APPLICANT:   - - - the other subpoena was for David Shaw, so that I am going to - let me get those documents up and I will email them to you and see - here we go - is it Form 42A subpoena? Is that the form? Are you there? Is that the form?
HIS HONOUR:   Yes. I am not here to give you legal advice.[8]

There followed some further discussion with counsel for the Law Society and the applicant in relation to the orders necessary for the filing and service of evidentiary material in preparation for the hearing of the application and the Law Society’s objections. At the conclusion of those discussions, there was the following exchange:
HIS HONOUR:   Yes. I will make these orders shortly.
Mr Liveris, have you given any consideration to whether this matter might be able to be brought to a summary conclusion in a manner permitted by the law?
MR LIVERIS:   Yes, we have. We have, your Honour. It’s a matter that we are actively considering at the moment. I have not been able to find in my reasonably brief searches at the moment, authorities on the point with respect to matters for admission, but it is obviously at its core a proceeding brought by originating motion and a matter that would be procedurally amenable to an application. It’s just a question of how the court may balance an application of this particular kind in the context of the summary disposition, so it’s a matter that we have not yet reached a final position on, but one that we are actively looking at.
HIS HONOUR:   I am just wondering whether the nature and content of the email communications and the discourse during directions hearings is enough in and of itself to warrant a summary dismissal of the application.
MR LIVERIS:   Yes, those are the matters we are looking at, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:   Yes, all right.
APPLICANT:   And your Honour and - and your Honour, sorry, this is how I conduct myself with David Shaw and he’s the one who pushed for this application to be submitted, so if that happens can we then initiate proceedings against David Shaw?
HIS HONOUR:   Yes, all right.[9]
The Court then made programming orders for the filing and service of affidavit material, outlines of submissions and lists of authorities in relation to the full suite of issues raised by the Law Society’s Outline of Objections, and adjourned the matter for directions to 18 June 2024. On 1 March 2024, the Law Society filed the application for summary judgment.
The assessment of fitness and propriety
The determination of fitness for admission as a legal practitioner, or fitness to hold a practising certificate, is not a process directed to punitive purposes. Rather, the purpose of those assessments is for the protection of the public.[10] Fitness and propriety are to be assessed having in mind the high standards required of legal practitioners in the practice of their profession. Those standards are required because the relationships between legal practitioner and client, between legal practitioners, and between legal practitioner and the Court, are ones of trust in the performance of professional functions, and because there must be confidence in the public and those engaged in the administration of justice that legal practitioners will properly perform those functions.[11]
To be a fit and proper person for admission as a legal practitioner requires the applicant to demonstrate that she or he has the requisite honesty and competence for the purpose of dealing with clients, other practitioners and the Court in the discharge of the duties of a legal practitioner. Given the central role the legal profession plays in the administration of justice, the determination of fitness and propriety extends to the assessment of an applicant’s suitability, temperament and character in order to maintain the continuing confidence of the public in the performance of the duties of legal practitioners.[12] The requisite qualities were recently described in the following terms (footnotes omitted):
In order for a person to be ‘fit and proper’ to become, or remain, a legal practitioner, they must be honest, independent, able to judge what ethical conduct is required of them, and then be capable of diligently discharging the responsibilities of their office. A legal practitioner must be ‘possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character is to permit him to be safely accredited to the public, without further enquiry, as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licensor entails’.[13]
The Court in that matter cited with approval the well-known passage from Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) in the following terms:
The expression "fit and proper person" is of course familiar enough as traditional words when used with reference to offices and perhaps vocations. But their very purpose is to give the widest scope for judgment and indeed for rejection. "Fit" (or "idoneus") with respect to an office is said to involve three things, honesty knowledge and ability: "honesty to execute it truly, without malice affection or partiality; knowledge to know what he ought duly to do; and ability as well in estate as in body, that he may intend and execute his office, when need is, diligently, and not for impotency or poverty neglect it" - Coke. When the question was whether a man was a fit and proper person to hold a licence for the sale of liquor it was considered that it ought not to be confined to an inquiry into his character and that it would be unwise to attempt any definition of the matters which may legitimately be inquired into; each case must depend upon its own circumstances: R. v. Hyde Justices (1912) 1 KB 645, at p 664. In another such case it was decided that if in the view of the justices the security of tenure enjoyed by the proposed licensee in the premises was insufficient, that was a good ground for holding that he was not a fit and proper person to be the holder of the licence: R. v. Holborn Licensing Justices; Ex parte Stratford Catering Co. Ltd. (1926) 42 TLR 778. It is evident that under par. (a) of sub-s. (4) the commissioner is invested with an authority to accept or reject an applicant the exercise of which depends on no certain or definite criteria and which in truth involves a very wide discretion. If guidance is sought in that paragraph of sub-s. (3) which more or less corresponds, namely par. (c), nothing more definite will be found. What under par. (c) the commissioner is required to have regard to is "the character, suitability and fitness of the applicant to hold the licence applied for".[14]
As is apparent from that passage, the question of fitness extends not only to honesty and knowledge, but also to the person’s ability to perform the duties of the office appropriately, competently and effectively. The importance of these qualities has been explained as follows:
There are four interrelated interests involved. Clients must feel secure in confiding their secrets and entrusting their most personal affairs to lawyers. Fellow practitioners must be able to depend implicitly on the word and the behaviour of their colleagues. The judiciary must have confidence in those who appear before the courts. The public must have confidence in the legal profession by reason of the central role the profession plays in the administration of justice. Many aspects of the administration of justice depend on the trust by the judiciary and/or the public in the performance of professional obligations by professional people.[15]
To that end, s 30 of the Legal Profession Act provides that the Supreme Court or Admission Board must, in deciding if a person is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession, consider each of the ‘suitability matters’ in relation to the person and any other matter it considers relevant. The suitability matters are set out in s 11(1) of the Legal Profession Act. Those suitability matters include whether the person is of good character and whether the person currently has a material inability to engage in legal practice. However, the Court is not confined in determining whether a person is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession to those suitability matters. The Court is also obliged to take into account any other matters it considers relevant.
In proceedings of this nature, if the Law Society objects to an application for admission on the basis of suitability it carries the onus of proof of establishing on the balance of probabilities that the applicant is not a fit and proper person for admission as a legal practitioner. Once the regulatory authority has established a prima facie case that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession, the evidentiary burden of proof shifts to the applicant to adduce evidence to establish that she or he is a fit and proper person for admission.[16]
The present application made by the Law Society is framed in terms of an order for summary judgment against the applicant in relation to the whole of the proceeding. The proceeding in question is the application to be admitted to the legal profession. That is an application which ultimately falls for determination by the Supreme Court. In the ordinary course, the determination of whether a person is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession is made by the Board, and the Board makes a recommendation to the Court in relation to both suitability and the eligibility requirements stipulated in the legislation. In the present case, that determination of fitness and propriety has been referred by the Board to the Court for determination, as is permitted by the legislation where the Board considers that to be the appropriate course. The Court may make the order it considers appropriate on that referral.
In circumstances where the Court determines that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession, the order will be in those terms and the Board will then make its recommendation to the Court on the issues of eligibility and suitability accordingly. On the other hand, where the Court determines that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession, the appropriate order will ordinarily be to dismiss the application for admission. To order that a person is not a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession, and then to refer the matter back to the Board for its recommendation to the Court in those same terms, would be both unnecessary and inappropriate.
On a proper characterisation, the application by the Law Society is not one for summary judgment. The Law Society’s contention is not, to adopt the test ordinarily applied in summary judgment applications, that there is no real question of law or fact that should be decided at trial in relation to the full suite of grounds of objection it has notified in the Outline of Objections document. Rather, it is in effect an application for an order on the referral that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession because the uncontested evidence before the Court concerning the frequency and content of the applicant’s email communications to the Law Society and the Court during the prosecution of the application, and her conduct in the course of directions hearings in the proceeding, permits the Court to determine all questions of fact and law necessary for the conclusion that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice.
In other words, the import of the Law Society’s application is that a consideration of the other grounds of objection is unnecessary because the applicant’s lack of fitness is manifest on the single ground identified in its application. For the reasons I have described, if the Court determines that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession on that ground, the appropriate order will be to dismiss the application for admission.
Consideration
The evidence before the Court in relation to the volume and frequency of email communications made by the applicant to the Law Society from the time of the referral in February 2023 to the time of the relevant deposition on 1 March 2024 is that the applicant had sent in excess of 6000 emails. In addition to that volume, these emails are said by the solicitor with carriage of the matter on behalf of the Law Society to be inappropriate and irrelevant to a degree demonstrative of inability. As already described in the procedural history, those emails are also copied to other persons, including the civil registry of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice’s Associate.
The volume and frequency of the applicant’s email correspondence increased from April 2023 until it reached the point that her email traffic was causing the Law Society’s account to repeatedly crash. As a consequence, in October 2023 the Law Society blocked the applicant’s email address. The applicant’s email address was unblocked on 2 February 2024, and between that date and 29 February 2024 the Law Society received more than 958 email communications from the applicant. As a consequence, the Law Society again blocked the applicant’s email address from 29 February 2024.
That evidence is consistent with the volume of email correspondence sent by the applicant to the Court. Between 15 March 2023 and 10 April 2024, the Court received 8044 email communications from the applicant. The volume of those email communications was also causing the relevant Court accounts to crash. As a consequence, the applicant’s email address was blocked between 2 October and 13 November 2023, 6 December 2023 and 24 January 2024, and 13 February to 9 April 2024.
The solicitor with carriage of the matter on behalf of the Law Society deposes that many of those email communications contained profanities, casual forms of address, unfounded and scandalous allegations, personal matters and irrelevant streams of consciousness about issues entirely unrelated to the application for admission. A series of 12 example email chains are annexed to the affidavit sworn on 1 March 2024. An examination of that sample bears out the deponent’s characterisation of the communications. In particular, the emails are often sent in streams only minutes apart; the content of the communications is largely rambling and incomprehensible; they contain irrelevant commentary on current affairs; they are frequently profane and/or contain sexual content; they contain frequent references to the applicant’s physical and mental health and consumption of alcohol; and they contain allegations of violence and sexual assault perpetrated against the applicant.
The emails sent before and after the applicant’s failure to attend at the directions hearing on 16 November 2023 which are extracted above give some indication of the inappropriateness of the applicant’s conduct in this respect. However, those extracts do not afford a full appreciation of the level of disordered thought, ill-considered content and transgressive conceptualisation contained in many of the communications. By way of further example, the emails sent by the applicant between 19 and 23 August 2023 were as follows:
From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 23 August 2023 9:18 AM
To: Graham Wong <[email protected]>; David Shaw <[email protected]>; Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>
Cc: saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>
Subject:
This nurse is my real area of interest - they said she was happy go lucky - like my twin - always smiling etc.
(My twin said everyone thought I was the bitchy twin as I didn't walk around smiling seeking instant gratification from strangers, rather just went from A to B - obviously I knew that wasn't true , that everyone thought I was a bitch, as I went to several parties during that time - which she didn’t know the people - so wasn’t invited)
And now we have a title - ‘sadistic’ - so killing the babies was giving her sexual pleasure - which later she would go and masturbate too? Sounds likely - like she would get that crazy side grin while doing it….knowing their was some excitement…some thrill in seeing them squirming and fighting for their lives.
Twin - little different - I haven’t seen her have that grin with kids - she gets that when she is patronising - like ‘I’ve won and you don’t even know how bad you’re going to cop it’ - like when she was stroking my face, when they were about to forcibly hold me down to inject me to hospitalise me - and she could see how scared I was - she really enjoyed it - she had that twisted grin. I was like, she is seriously messed up! Could kill me.
But her with the little kids - it’s more a stop sqirming hold really still while I touch you and masturbate. Like I never say her actually masturbate to kids - just the hold still part - she hated the baby moving around. Would get so angry changing his diaper - I was like this isn’t hard - put a toy above his head. Anyway, could see the weird control from the start. And like her threatening that little kid with a knife from across the table - the one who shat himself on his play date there because she clearly touched him - I’m guessing she liked making them scared to allow her to touch them - she wanted them still? In fear? She liked to see their fear? While she masturbated?
Yep, got it - when I saw her at the swimming pool - her top down - she was fondling her boob - while the little kid stared in slight disbelief and didn’t know what to do, so just sat watching - it was attention??? I can’t believe you’re doing this??
So she is like a serial killer and a paedophile?
Like gets a perverse pleasure in seeing others in pain - but a sexual pleasure from touching kids - the attention she gets from them.
Whereas above lady probably gets her both pleasures from killing babies? Anyway that’s for her forensic psych to figure out.
It is interesting though.
Maybe my next research area? Sounds like I might come up with a compelling thesis? I was asked to do honours in criminology.

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Monday, 21 August 2023 10:23 PM
To: David Shaw <[email protected]>; Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>
Cc: saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [NAME REDACTED], it’s not a great acronym but BoPPers might save the world.
P.s while writing that I was watching the comedy show on channel 10, and laughed so much a bit of pee came out - that means I'm feeling very awkward and uncomfortable - usually it's a sign that whereever I am, I need to leave and quickly.
And say to the person who's talking - please stop - I get you're a little scared and want to debrief - but I may wet myself - so stop talking until I can regain my composure - and then retell me - what were you feeling - as I was to busy watching everyone and listening to the jokes to understand what you were feeling and why we signalled - leave!

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Monday, 21 August 2023 9:42 PM
To: David Shaw <[email protected]>; Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>
Cc: saforensic dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [NAME REDACTED], it’s not a great acronym but BoPPers might save the world.
Do we need the UTI story again....
So, can't sit at the register for a long time - keep feeling the urge to pee.
It's annoying.
Something is wrong.
Chat to my colleague - not sure why she was in the smokers area - maybe someone said check on her.
Then we chat - she says caused from either shit sex or escasty.
Go to doctor.
I go to doctor.
Doctor says fill this cup.
I say that's the problem - can't.
She seems annoyed.
Bring back the cup after drinking so much water - looks very diluted.
She says I'll call with results.
She calls - says nothing wrong.
I say um ok I'll resign myself to this being a permanent issue.
Learn not to think about it - body wants to per but none will come out - so trick mind - ignore the signal wanting to go to the toilet.

Anyway? I’ve emailed chambers asking for an adjournment - which is standard practice when a lawyer is suffering mentally… I’m not sure why they keep ignoring my request?

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2024 11:08 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; saforensic | dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Hearing listed
I just don't get why they wasted a year on a medical assessment and then ignored the report?
Like my emails are tied to my mental illness - give me an adjournment on my mental health grounds and the emails will stop. And case law says that you shouldn’t suffer disciplinary action for things tied to mental health - as mental health is a mitigating factor.
And then we can appear in court, when I'm fit and heathly and make submissions on the substantive issues? If there are any?
Like why would the court have hearing after hearing where I appeared unfit? Why would they continue? After the first hearing, they should have ordered a health assessment, had another hearing to discuss the assessment and adjourned or dismissed the matter?
Why have multiple hearings - where I'm saying I'm unfit and we need a health assessment?
As the Law society intentionally wanted to cause me humiliation because of my mental state?
Like who doesn't allow an adjournment after someone's house burns down? And they are sobbing uncontrollably in court?
Anyway? I think you all are much better suited to law than me - sounds like a depressing life. And [NAME REDACTED] pretty much says it was - if it wasn't for having drunk lunches and affairs - it was a fairly shit job , where clients are ungrateful and colleagues have little emotional intelligence (aka are psychopaths). And I don't really want to have drunk lunches or cheat on a spouse if I had one, or really do work that my kid would be ashamed of me for lacking a moral compass.
Anyway? There is a clear case - when a lawyer showed up to court struggling mentally - and his clients case was suffering - the judge gave him time off - followed medical procedures - he then didn't suffer any disciplinary action - he kept his job - and was practising under supervision for 12 months while getting treatment... isn't that's what's meant to happen? Otherwise it's disability discrimination?
Can I file a submission? Or will that be ignored like every other time I’ve tried to file documents?

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2024 10:43 AM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; saforensic | dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Hearing listed
Morning all
Why is Aislinn emailing me? Boundaries? I’ve said I’m not fit and need an adjournment - hence I can’t read her emails etc. why is she harassing me?
I think I’ll definitely need to lodge a matter against her and David Shaw as her harassment is just non stop.
And I had such a good sleep last night crashed out before the end of MAFS. I think it was because I ate the most delicious pasta I’ve ever eaten - and I cooked it - not try to toot my own horn - but it was seriously yum.
And then I had all these awesome dreams - my last dream - I was back working in govt - and we were having heaps of laughs - and then we saw a former manager and she was all dressed up as they had some special dinner and my colleague turned to me and said I don’t know how she could be bothered - yeah if I was in my 20s it would be fun - but who wants to work after work hours - and then I turned and said I think it just makes them feel powerful and special - like all the extra hours and time away from their kids is worth it - as they all sit and pat each other on the back - although they don’t seem to have really done anything for the world..
Anyway? It’s crazy how real life like the dreams are - full of characters and conversations - like we’re even chatting over the dishwasher about who uses what cups etc… and these were with people I’ve never seen before in my life…it’s like your brain can literally think up so much random stuff. It’s very incredibly. Like I’ve never ever dreamt like this before. It’s amazing what taking time away from abusive people can do to heal your brain.
Oh the never ending Bruce Lehreman matter - it’s like the worse kept secret that 7 are major misogynists - that’s why their office are close to NAB which is the banking worlds channel 7…so it’s no surprise they knew purchasing a hooker for someone on rape charges might seal the deal - do you think they go home after work and feel dirty? Like have to wash off the filth before they hug their children? Or they just think that little of women that they believe they are entitled to non consensual sex… so don’t think they’ve done anything wrong by telling Bruce he too hadn’t done anything wrong and he had a right to show that on TV?
It’s all very gross.
So, definitely during my healing process - I can’t be exposed to law - as it’s just a bit gross and might ruin all these wonderful dreams I’ve been having that have made it hard to get out of bed.
I did say that to my twin when she would talk about dreaming - I said wouldn’t it make it hard to get out of bed? She was like not really… as I think she must enjoy her life? So dreams are just an extension of that? While I would always have nothing or nightmares due to having a shit life and bad anxiety. And at the moment I have no life - so I couldn’t get out of bed, as wanted to keep dreaming - and did until it hit 14 hrs and the dogs jumped into bed and I was like must get out of bed.
Anyway? As Stephen’s report said I should get 3-6 months off? I’m really not sure why that medical advice has been ignored and I keep gettting harassed by the Law Society? I’m guessing Aislinn has quite a miserable life? Can’t really imagine her controlling nature being conducive to taking care of the well being of children - like being able to soothe a child when they spill milk etc? So I’m guessing as she doesn’t have kids, and only works part-time for the law society.. she might be struggling in life? Hence why when she called me about the medical report and I said, I agree, I need a break and financially I can afford one, she hung up on me? As she miserable and bitter?

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2024 1:27 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; saforensic | dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Hearing listed
Afternoon all
Nothing interesting in the news. And what a lovely Easter. I feel so relaxed and happy. Like I woke up feeling happy.
Didn’t hear from my family - but had a missed call from [NAME REDACTED] today. But look they didn’t call me after my house burnt down. So didnt expect much. And kind of feel good not being part of their drama. Easter is always a drama…. As they go to the beach house and don’t invite us… so everyone has a bitch etc, except when they started coming to Alice for Easter - but even that was weird - as they only invited the other siblings when I invited them.
Anyway? Now just decided what to have for lunch.
Still surprised how good I’m feeling…
Think it’s been all these emails expressing my grieving process.
Like I’m pretty sure I was never suited to law - like that weird work experience at [NAME REDACTED] where they treated me like I didn’t exist - unlike the other work experience kid who got a full itinerary of things to do.
But as I said I just did my law degree so I could assert my rights. Which I’ve done - self sufficient individual.

From: [NAME REDACTED]>
Sent: Sunday, 31 March 2024 11:53 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; saforensic | dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Hearing listed
Okay I’m not fighting about this. Reckon I’ll study being a chef? That’s it. Im so over being scared.

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Sunday, 31 March 2024 11:51 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; saforensic | dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Hearing listed
Okay I’m not claiming anything, just out of this process,

The email communications sent by the applicant on 8 April 2024 included the following:
From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Monday, 8 April 2024 2:00 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; saforensic | dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Hearing listed
Um I just read the recent affidavit - um yes, I did study law, so I do have a general awareness that if I am served a submission by a party, that I have the right to make a submission back.
I was not aware of dates they were due etc - as how would I know that? I hadn't picked up the letter.
Like com'on? Who is writing these affidavits and what are they trying to prove? That I have a general awareness of the law?
Anyway? Wonder if I will be able to write an affidavit in response? Or are we waiting for that - for when I file against Holding Redlich and the Law Society?
Anyway, I'm finding all these emails from the law society demonstrate that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of my nature - like they think I am trying to get out of doing something? Want to change the Hearings etc? I am really not bothered - But not allowing me time to file affidavit, which is making it difficult to write submissions, might mean there is an error of law, that would bring grounds to appeal the summary dismissal? I just thought I should bring that to CJ's attention.
But i dont even think i want to appeal that - I just want my money back and for responsibility for the inadequate affidavit to be attributed to the writer - which was not me.
Anyway, slept so well last night and again had really good dreams - this dreaming thing is seriously awesome - then the dogs kept waking me up for snuggles. Like life is getting pretty good now. And I'm definitely adjusting into retirement. Like have you noticed, that since all the crime in Alice has calmed down, as people have started actually addressing the issues, the emails have significantly decreased? Like my life is pretty good now - dont really have much to say now.

From: [NAME REDACTED]
Sent: Monday, 8 April 2024 12:54 PM
To: Associate Grant CJ <[email protected]>; Tracey Holmes <[email protected]>; Aislinn McIntyre <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Graham Wong <[email protected]>; saforensic | dr stephen allnutt <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Hearing listed
MAFS is so full on! It's always the 'nice guy' you have to watch out for most - they will do and say anything to be right and be viewed as nice - when really they are anything but - and usually they are 'losers' - constantly want attention/praise and have low social skills I.e. are pretty boring, at worst annoying - and won't own it when they do the wrong thing.
Like if he was upset that Lauren asked him to stop being so boring and show his true personality - he should have left and said I can't stand this woman - instead he stayed and gaslit her - showing his true mean and vindictive personality to Ellie who is just like him - we all thought was boring and 'the nice girl' - but really just mean.
They both have been constantly looking for attention - speaking so loudly about their how great their relationship is , so she could hear- then just sat around gloating.
It's the typical nice boy and girl - really mean people as just losers but want to be cool - and think there way of acting is 'cool' - so try to convince people there way of acting is 'cool'.

That selection of email communications is generally representative of the tenor and content of the applicant’s communication since 15 March 2023. This is not a case in which there has been some isolated lapse or lapses into inappropriate behaviours by the applicant, punctuating what is otherwise an appropriate course of communications. This is a course of perverse, inappropriate and entirely unprofessional conduct by communication which has persisted for in excess of a year. The applicant has persisted with that course of communications despite the fact that she has been warned by both the Law Society and the psychiatrist who conducted the health assessment that to do so would be inappropriate and potentially prejudicial to her application for admission to the legal profession.
The Law Society wrote to the applicant on 22 March 2023. The primary purpose of that communication was to advise the applicant of the Law Society’s role in her application for admission, to suggest that the applicant seek independent legal advice in relation to the application, to provide details of the law practices with the relevant experience and expertise in admission matters, and to provide previous decisions of the Supreme Court in relation to contested applications for admission. The letter also noted that the applicant had sent many emails to the Law Society and to the Supreme Court in the context of her application for admission. The letter stated that it was not the usual course that an applicant for admission would correspond in the casual manner adopted by the applicant in her emails, or send frequent and numerous emails in relation to the application before a timetable had been fixed to prepare the matter for hearing. The volume and frequency of the applicant’s email communications did not abate after that time. Rather, they increased.
The Law Society wrote to the applicant again on 24 April 2023. The purpose of that letter was to advise the applicant of the Law Society’s intention to make application for her to undergo a health assessment, to raise the question of the applicant’s ongoing correspondence to the Supreme Court, and to reiterate the Society’s previous suggestion that the applicant seek legal representation in the proceedings. In relation to the question of correspondence, the Law Society advised that it was not proper for the applicant to be communicating with the Court and the Society (and others) in the way that she had been, and that she should cease doing so immediately. The Law Society drew the applicant’s attention to the authorities which described the restrictions on a party’s communications to the courts, and to the relevant provisions of the rules of professional conduct in relation to such communications.
The Law Society also advised the applicant that a failure to comply with the rules could amount to professional misconduct, and cited a Western Australian authority to that effect. It should be noted that the inappropriateness of the communication determined in that authority to constitute professional misconduct fell far below the level of egregiousness in the applicant’s course of communications.[17] The Law Society made the obvious point that there were rules for communications with the Court within the profession that the applicant was seeking to join, and that an inability or unwillingness to comply with those rules in the course of prosecuting her application for admission would give rise to the clear inference that she would be unable to comply with those rules if admitted. The volume, frequency and impropriety of the applicant’s email communications did not abate after that time.
During the course of the clinical evaluation conducted on 5 July 2023, the applicant conceded that she had at that time continued to pursue that course of email communications despite the deleterious effect that it might have on this application and despite the cautions and requests to desist. The applicant sought to justify, or at least explain, her conduct on the basis of frustration, honesty and anger at her circumstances, and also on the basis that she sent some of the communications when she was intoxicated. The volume and frequency of her communications did not abate after that time.
The Law Society wrote to the applicant again on 21 November 2023. The correspondence noted her failure to attend the directions hearing on 16 November 2023, and sought her consent to provide a copy of the report of the health assessment to her treating psychiatrist. The Law Society also noted that the applicant continued to send frequent emails to the Supreme Court and the Law Society which contained highly inappropriate material and references unrelated to the application for admission. The Law Society requested the applicant to immediately cease communicating in that manner, and reiterated its suggestion that the applicant engage legal representation. As is apparent from the email communications extracted above, the volume, frequency and impropriety of the applicant’s communications did not abate after that time.
During the course of the hearing on 12 April 2024, the applicant’s principal submission in response to the Law Society’s contention that the nature of her email communications to the Law Society and the Court demonstrated a lack of fitness, was that once she was admitted to the legal profession she could and would cease communicating in that manner. That response demonstrates a telling lack of insight into the nature of the proceedings for admission, the applicant’s role and responsibilities in those proceedings, and the impropriety of communicating in an admittedly inappropriate fashion as a means of venting displeasure at an enquiry into her suitability for admission.
The applicant’s subsidiary submissions in relation to the inappropriateness of her email communications were that she had been living in Alice Springs during what she described as a ‘state of emergency’, and that in May 2023 the house in which she had been residing had been significantly damaged by fire.[18] The thrust of these submissions appeared to be that there was some justification or excuse for her inappropriate conduct. As already described, that conduct has persisted for in excess of 12 months and cannot be attributed to the Emergency Declaration and Youth Curfew imposed in Alice Springs between 27 March and 16 April 2024. Similarly, while it may be accepted that the house fire was upsetting for the applicant, it provides no adequate explanation or excuse for her persistent and long-running conduct.
The Law Society also submits that the applicant’s conduct in the course of directions hearings in the proceeding gives rise to the irresistible inference that she is not fit for admission as a legal practitioner. That submission is borne out to some degree by those parts of the transcript of various directions hearings which have been extracted above. However, those extracts do not disclose the full extent of the applicant’s inappropriate conduct and submissions during the course of the directions hearings in this matter. The transcripts of those hearings are annexed to the Law Society affidavit sworn on 1 March 2024.
During the course of the directions hearing conducted on 16 March 2023, the applicant’s submissions included irrelevant material relating to alleged family violence and alleged harassment of the applicant by her family; disclosure and commentary in relation to the applicant’s drinking and sleep habits; the expression of conflicting positions in relation to her intention to pursue the application for admission; and the use of profanities.

During the course of the directions hearing conducted on 17 April 2023, the applicant’s submissions included repetitive allegations and complaints concerning the fact that the applicant was appearing by audio-visual link; a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the hearing and the ability of the Court to order payment for her legal representation; constant interruptions; and the use of profanities.
During the course of the directions hearing conducted on 26 May 2023, the applicant’s submissions included irrelevant material related to alleged family violence and issues relating to house insurance following a fire; allegations that the applicant had been forced to make and continue with the application by her previous legal representative; a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the hearing; a refusal to adopt any coherent and consistent position in relation to consent to an order for a health assessment; and generally incomprehensible content.
The applicant failed to appear at the directions hearing which was conducted on 16 November 2023. The reason for that failure, which is apparent from the applicant’s email communications immediately before and after the directions hearing, is that she was highly intoxicated. The failure to appear in those circumstances is in and of itself demonstrative of a degree of unsuitability. That failure is compounded by the fact that in her written Outline of Submissions prepared for the course of this hearing, the applicant submits that she was advised by the Court that she was not required to attend the hearing, and that she used her time to engage in legal activities.[19] At no time was the applicant advised by the Court that she was not required to attend the hearing, and her email communications sent on the morning of 16 November 2023 demonstrate that she well knew of the listing and the requirement to attend. The statement that she had been advised that she was not required to attend the hearing is false, and the submission that she instead used her time to engage in ‘legal activities’ is both actively misleading and impudent.
During the course of the directions hearing conducted on 30 January 2024, the applicant’s conduct included making submissions containing irrelevant material in relation to her family; inappropriate and discourteous interruptions; making unfounded allegations against the Law Society; making inconsistent and incomprehensible submissions in relation to the future conduct of her application and a foreshadowed application to the High Court; and a general inability to address the matters of evidence and law necessary for the prosecution of her application. During the course of that directions hearing, the applicant also asserted that at the very first directions hearing, and at every directions hearing after that time, she had asked to withdraw her application, but that the Court had refused to accept her withdrawal and effectively forced her to continue with the application. As is apparent from the portions of transcript of the directions hearings which have been extracted above, that submission was either deliberately and actively dishonest or grossly misconceived.
Those concerns about the applicant’s suitability for admission are reinforced and amplified by some aspects of her written Outline of Submissions in response to the Law Society’s application.
First, parts of those submissions seek to attribute responsibility for the applicant’s prosecution of the application, and the contents of her affidavit in support, to the solicitor the applicant had originally engaged to advise her on the application for admission.[20] It is not clear whether those submissions are seeking to blame the solicitor for some shortcoming in the affidavit material or her continuing conduct, or to characterise the solicitor’s alleged urgings to pursue the application as some sort of certification of fitness and propriety. If it is the former, that constitutes a failure on the part of the applicant to understand or accept her responsibility for the contents of her own depositions and her autonomy in the pursuit of the application. If it is the latter, the provision of legal advice in relation to an application for admission clearly does not operate as a certification of suitability.
Second, parts of those submissions seek to attribute responsibility for the applicant’s prosecution of the application to the Registrar, the Court and the Law Society.[21] Again, the import of those submissions is not entirely clear. At one point the submission made, without apparent irony, is that the Court has committed an error of law by permitting the applicant to continue with her application. Again, those submissions reflect a failure on the part of the applicant to understand the processes or accept responsibility for her conduct. There is also a gross misconception underlying the applicant’s further submission that various responses by the Registrar, the Court and the Law Society to the applicant's prosecution of the application operated as some concession of suitability.
Third, parts of those submissions demonstrate an almost total lack of insight on the part of the applicant into the nature and effect of her conduct.[22] The applicant seeks to characterise her conduct as an accumulation of ‘trivial matters’. The applicant submits that only matters ‘that demonstrate a pattern, such as multiple criminal convictions,’ could warrant a finding of unsuitability based on a course of conduct. The applicant submits further that the Law Society has treated the applicant’s case differently to other applications on the basis of ‘trivial suitability matters’. In support of that contention, the applicant refers to a number of decided cases dealing with applications for admission concerning Centrelink debts, previous criminal convictions and academic dishonesty in a manner and for a purported purpose which demonstrates a failure to appreciate the particular circumstances of her case and the grounds of this application by the Law Society. Finally in this respect, the applicant seeks to characterise her email communications with the Court and the Law Society, and the various allegations and calumnies contained in them, as akin to messaging or posting on Facebook. As counsel for the Law Society submitted in response, there is a complete difference in kind.
Fourth, parts of those submissions make allegations of discrimination against the Court and the Law Society.[23] The applicant says variously that the conduct of directions hearings in Darwin requiring her attendance by audio-visual link from Alice Springs constituted unlawful discrimination on the part of both the Court and the Law Society, and that the Law Society engaged in unlawful discrimination by filing particulars of the objections to her admission. Those submissions are so obviously misconceived as to give rise to suitability concerns.
Fifth, various parts of the applicant’s submissions demonstrate a regrettable misunderstanding of the nature of the application, the procedures involved, the operation of the relevant legislation and the role of the Court.[24] At a fundamental level, the applicant repeats a submission she had previously made during the course of a directions hearing to the effect that an application for admission is no more than a job application, and misunderstands the role of the Court in an application of this nature.[25] At a more prosaic level, the applicant confuses and conflates the power of the Law Society to summarily dismiss a complaint against a legal practitioner with the power of the Court to deal with an application for admission to the legal profession; asserts that the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules of procedure do not apply to applications for admission because those matters are governed exclusively by the Legal Profession Act; submits that ‘applications for admission to the legal profession operate at a lower standard than under the [Supreme Court Act] and [Supreme Court Rules]’; and asserts that the provision of her application for admission and the related documents to the Law Society constituted an error of law.[26]
None of this is to say that in order to qualify as suitable for admission an applicant must demonstrate the competencies and acuity of an experienced legal practitioner. The relevance of those matters for present purposes is that they demonstrate the lack of insight inherent in the assertions repeatedly made by the applicant in support of her suitability to the effect that she performed very well during the course of her studies towards a law degree and that she has the competency of a graduate lawyer, and the lack of insight underlying her insistence and assertion that she is capable of representing herself in the prosecution of the application for admission.
In opposing the Law Society’s application for the dismissal of her application for admission, the applicant contends that there is a range of matters of fact and law which remain to be determined in her application and which are not ripe for summary determination. The applicant says that allegations have been made against her in the Outline of Objections, and she is entitled to have all of those allegations determined at hearing. I have already described the nature of this application for summary determination and the manner in which it is at variance with what might be described as an orthodox summary judgment application. It is not concerned with the other suitability matters raised in the Law Society’s grounds of objection concerning such matters as the provision of information to the Department of Immigration, Centrelink debts, any history of drug and alcohol use, prior convictions and the precise characterisation and effect of the applicant’s mental condition. The Law Society’s application is concerned only with the applicant’s conduct in the course of this application, and its ultimate submission is that, whatever the cause of that conduct might be, it is plainly demonstrative of a present unsuitability for admission to the legal profession.
Having regard to the totality of these matters, there is no doubt that the applicant is not currently a fit and proper person for admission to the legal profession. This is not to say that she may not at some point in the future be both eligible and suitable for admission, but that is clearly not the case at the present time, and on the material presently before the Court it is not possible to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant might satisfy those requirements within any particular timeframe.
Order
I make the following orders:
1.The applicant is not currently a fit and proper person for admission to the legal profession.
2.The applicant’s application for admission to the legal profession made by originating motion filed on 7 February 2023 is dismissed.
_______________________

[1]Transcript of proceedings, 16 March 2023,pp 3-4.

[2]Transcript of proceedings, 16 March 2023,pp 4-6.

[3]Transcript of proceedings, 16 March 2023,p 13.

[4]Transcript of proceedings, 17 April 2023,pp 17-18.

[5]Transcript of proceedings, 17 April 2023,pp 12-14.

[6]Transcript of proceedings, 26 May 2023,pp 2-4.

[7]Transcript of proceedings, 30 January 2024,pp 3-4.

[8]Transcript of proceedings, 30 January 2024,pp 4-7, 9, 12-13.

[9]Transcript of proceedings, 30 January 2024,pp 19-20.

[10] New South Wales Bar Association v Murphy (2002) 55 NSWLR 23 at [113].

[11] New South Wales Bar Association v Murphy (2002) 55 NSWLR 23 at [113].

[12] Connop v Law Society Northern Territory [2016] NTSC 38 at [25], and the authorities there cited.

[13] Re Zita [2022] VSC 354 at [91], and the authorities there cited.

[14] Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127 at 157.

[15] New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279 at [19]-[20], cited in Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v Montenegro [2015] NSWCA 409 at [66].

[16] See, in relation to disciplinary proceedings, Stanoevski v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 93 at [59].

[17] Legal Practice Complaints Committee v Chin (2012) 81 SR (WA) 150 at [152]-[165].

[18] Similar submissions are made in the Applicant's Outline of Submissions dated 11 April 2024, paragraphs [34], [36], [37], [86], [88], [91], [104].

[19] Applicant's Outline of Submissions dated 11 April 2024, paragraph [27].

[20] Applicant's Outline of Submissions dated 11 April 2024, paragraphs [3], [8], [9], [11], [15].

[21] Applicant's Outline of Submissions dated 11 April 2024, paragraphs [10], [12], [28], [30(iv)], [31], [107].

[22] Applicant's Outline of Submissions dated 11 April 2024, paragraphs [68], [70], [84], [87].

[23] Applicant's Outline of Submissions dated 11 April 2024, paragraphs [19], [55]-[59], [93], [94], [106].

[24] Applicant's Outline of Submissions dated 11 April 2024, paragraphs [40]-[48], [51], [53].

[25] Applicant's Outline of Submissions dated 11 April 2024, paragraphs [13], [106]-[108].

[26] Applicant's Outline of Submissions dated 11 April 2024, paragraphs [54], [60], [62]-[63], [65], [66], [73].