In his application to be admitted, the would-be lawyer set out numerous matters that may impact his suitability, including a history of traffic infringements, SPER debts relating to various fines, a “victim of crime compensation payment” debt and a lengthy criminal history, including convictions for stealing, wilful damage, drug offences, breach of bail and trespass as well as wounding.

The crimes were committed by the applicant when he was seventeen, 18 and 19 — with the wounding offence committed at 18 years old. He is now 34 and has since served three months in prison, and three years’ probation.

The most notable incident happened in 2007, during which the applicant was at a party when a fight broke out, resulting in the applicant stabbing two people — a 38-year-old man and his 60-year-old mother.

After the 38-year-old, who had injured his back in 2001 and had trouble walking, came out of his house during a party, an altercation was started with one of the applicant’s friends, who had thrown a bottle of vodka at the victim and placed him in a headlock. The applicant was subsequently “told there was a man outside wanting to fight”, was handed a steak knife and went out to the confrontation.

He then stabbed the man twice in his upper back, with a third stab “deflecting” and hitting the man’s mother as she tried to protect him. After the altercation, the applicant went back inside, pretended to be asleep and denied involvement in a later interview.

The sentencing judge recorded that: “During the course of the confrontation in which a man with a significant disability, who had a walking stick, was or had just immediately been grabbed in a headlock” and that the applicant was “laughing and smiling after it happened”.

As he was only 18 years old at the time, the sentencing judge imposed the applicant’s sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment to be suspended after three months in actual custody for the more serious count of wounding (involving the 38-year-old man) and three years’ probation for the second count (involving the 60-year-old woman).

VIEW ALL

The applicant has since paid the victim over $20,000 in victim compensation and written a letter of apology — and in his application, submitted an affidavit that stated that he has been “very remorseful” of his actions. After being released from prison in 2008, he has also never been charged with another crime.

However, as part of his admission application, the court requested the sentencing remarks in relation to the conviction for wounding (as they were not provided) and, in their judgment, Chief Justice Helen Bowskill, Justice Jean Dalton and Justice David Boddice said these remarks presented a “significantly different picture of the events” the applicant had described in his provided affidavit.

“It is abundantly clear from the sentencing remarks that the applicant’s shorthand description of the offending … was deficient and misleading in a number of important respects,” they said.

These concerns were raised at the applicant’s first hearing in October 2022, before the application was adjourned until November. During this time period, directions were made to enable the applicant to file further affidavit material to explain why he was not “full and frank” in his disclosure of the offences in his first affidavit.

“In a further affidavit of the applicant filed on 27 October 2022 he says that, on the morning of 10 October 2022 (the first date for hearing of the application), he was asked by his counsel to provide details of the wounding offences so that counsel could convey these to the court if asked to do so. He sets out what he told his counsel, which is a good deal more than he put in paragraph 35 of his affidavit, but still leaves out key facts which are apparent from the sentencing remarks,” the judgment stated.  

“The applicant says that his recollection of the night is vague because he had consumed a significant quantity of alcohol. As for the sentencing hearing, the applicant says his ‘memory of that event is blurred as I was very anxious, focussed on what penalty I was to receive, and it has been 14 years since being sentenced.’ He adds that, in the 14 years since he was convicted and sentenced, he has tried not to think about that part of his life because they are a source of shame and embarrassment.”

The applicant’s father also submitted to the court that he has employed the applicant in his business since August, where he completes legal tasks, following his completion of a practical legal training course.

The applicant’s main ambition is to become a criminal lawyer — and has said he would be supervised and mentored for at least one hour a week by a family friend who is also a solicitor should he be admitted.

However, given the applicant’s past actions, the court said that this offer “is wholly inadequate to address the concerns that have been raised by the application” and that it was not satisfied that the applicant was, currently, a “fit and proper person” to be admitted.

“The court’s concerns about the suitability of the applicant for admission at this time are compounded by the evidence of his father, as to the nature of the work that he presently undertakes and his father’s enthusiasm about the applicant ‘adding value’ as an admitted lawyer.

“The applicant could not lawfully ‘add value’ to the business as a lawyer, by doing the things his father would like him to do. He can only lawfully engage in legal practice if he holds a local practising certificate; and then can only initially engage in supervised legal practice for a period of two years. He cannot do that working in his father’s company,” the judgment stated.

“A person cannot be admitted as a lawyer and then subsequently work on developing the appropriate level of insight and judgment to discharge the stringent duties of a legal practitioner. The point of the ‘fit and proper person’ requirement is that an applicant must be able to demonstrate it at the time of admission.”

The court recommended that the applicant undertake work experience as a law clerk, under the daily supervision of an experienced legal practitioner for a period of time before applying for admission again — and noted that the refusal of this application was “without prejudice to” the applicant’s ability to make a fresh application at a later date.