find the latest legal job
Senior Associate - Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Category: Litigation and Dispute Resolution | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Come work for a firm ranked in Lawyers Weekly Top 25 Attraction Firms
View details
Associate - Workplace Relations & Safety
Category: Industrial Relations and Employment Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Employer of choice · Strong team culture
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Banking and Finance Law | Location: All Perth WA
· Freelance opportunities through Vario from Pinsent Masons
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Adelaide SA
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Would-be lawyer gives changing account of stalking offence

Would-be lawyer gives changing account of stalking offence

An aspiring lawyer, who applied for admission in two jurisdictions, has failed to meet his duty of candour to the court after providing the ACT and Queensland legal services boards mismatching accounts of a 2012 stalking conviction.

Would-be lawyer Jason William King has failed to meet his duty of candour to the court, a Queensland judge has found.

The finding against the former Australian Federal Police officer turns on a 2012 stalking conviction. Mr King pleaded guilty to the charge under s 338E(1) of the Western Australian Criminal Code four years ago and was subsequently fined and placed on a two-year restraining order.   

Last November, Supreme Court Chief Justice Catherine Holmes heard the matter to determine whether differing disclosures Mr King had made to the Queensland and ACT legal services boards, in his bid to be admitted as a solicitor in those jurisdictions, amounted to failure to meet his duty of candour to the court.

Chief Justice Holmes described Mr King’s inconsistent accounts and failure to disclose certain facts to the ACT and Queensland boards as disingenuous and misleading.

Mr King was cross-examined, as part of last November’s hearing proceedings, to understand the inconsistencies in depositions he made to both the ACT and Queensland legal services boards.

The differing accounts Mr King gave to boards in both jurisdictions referred to three visits he made to Western Australia between 2011-2012, where it was alleged he engaged in intimidating conduct against his former partner.

The inconsistencies included his reasons for travelling to the state on three different occasions, the “on and off” nature of his relationship with the victim, and the assertion that he pleaded guilty to the stalking charge because “he did not want to embarrass” the victim about things such as naked photos she had sent to him.

“In his third ACT affidavit, filed after provision of the statement of material facts, the applicant said that looking at the document, he realised he should not have pleaded guilty,” judgment handed down last month read.

Chief Justice Holmes went on to remark in her judgment that as a former police officer, it was most improbable that Mr King would plead guilty to such an offence if he did not agree with the facts that gave rise to it.

“The applicant is a former police officer and has, by his own account, given evidence many times. 

“It is most improbable in light of his experience that he would plead guilty not just to the offence of stalking but the circumstance of aggravation, being the intent to intimidate the complainant, were he not guilty of it,” Chief Justice Holmes said.

“His attempts in his affidavits to suggest innocence of the offence or to minimise the extent of his offending must be rejected,” she said.

Mr King told Chief Justice Holmes last year that he had stated he did not agree with the account in the material statement of facts but would plead guilty anyway. He told the Queensland Supreme Court that he made these assertions during a short hearing in the Western Australian Magistrates Court, which dealt with the stalking charge in 2012.

“Asked why he had not recorded that account in any affidavit, [Mr King] said he regarded it as hearsay,” Chief Justice Holmes said.

Mr King initially applied to be admitted a solicitor in the ACT mid-last year. As part of the lodgment of his application to the ACT Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (ACT board), he disclosed the conviction of aggravated stalking with intent to intimidate from 2012.

In the first lodgment of documents, Mr King provided an affidavit to the ACT board which included a version of the events that led to his 2012 stalking conviction.

Mr King then filed a second affidavit on 4 June following a query from the ACT board as to whether there had been a protection order in place at the time of his arrest.

Mr King then provided a third affidavit to the board on 15 June with a police statement of material facts as they related to his stalking conviction, explaining the inconsistencies found in his two earlier affidavits and the document prepared by the Western Australia Police. This was done after the ACT board requested the statement of material facts.

By late June and while his application for admission through the ACT board was pending, Mr King filed an application for admission to the legal profession in Queensland.

Mr King’s application to the Queensland Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (board) again included a disclosure regarding his stalking conviction, however it also annexed the police statement of facts. He did not mention his ACT application for admission.

During cross-examination at his November hearing, Mr King told the court that he only applied for admission in the ACT because he had completed his GDLP with the Australian National University. However, he said as a resident of Queensland, he was later moved to apply for admission in that state instead.

Mr King told the court that it had not occurred to him that he should declare to the Queensland board that he had lodged an application for admission in the ACT.

In his application to the Queensland board, Mr King took issue with many of the things alleged in the police statement, notwithstanding his plea of guilty.

“His claim in evidence to have indicated during the summary hearing that he did not agree with exactly what happened seems a late attempt to account for the plea and was not mentioned in any earlier affidavit,” Chief Justice Holmes said.

The Queenslander's application for admission is adjourned for further hearing in the Supreme Court to 2 May 2017.

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Would-be lawyer gives changing account of stalking offence
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Oct 20 2017
High Court overturns ‘excessive’ anti-protest legislation
Bob Brown’s recent victory in the High Court over the Tasmanian government was a win for fundament...
Oct 20 2017
Changes to Australian citizenship laws blocked
Attempts to beef up the requirements to obtain Australian citizenship were thwarted this week, after...
Oct 20 2017
Lawyers warn against mandatory sentencing measures amid political jeers
Mandatory sentencing has become a topic for politicians on both sides of Federal Parliament to jostl...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...