Login
Former partner convicted of drug offenses prohibited from practice until 2020
A Queensland-based lawyer, who was convicted of multiple drug offences, will not be granted a practising certificate before a period of five years from the date of his conviction.
Jerome Doraisamy
Nigel Francis Munt was admitted in 1994 and became a partner of Trilby Misso Lawyers in Redcliffe, QLD, the following year, before that firm was sold in 2009 to Slater and Gordon.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
He was convicted, in April 2015, of one count of trafficking a dangerous drug, methamphetamine; 19 counts of supplying methamphetamine; and supplying a dangerous drug, cannabis, during various periods between August 2011 and August 2012.
He was sentenced to an effective head sentence of three years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of four years.
The QLD Civil and Administrative Tribunal said it was not in issue that the convictions were such as to warrant a finding of professional misconduct, but a determination was needed as to orders under the Legal Profession Act.
The hearing was “not an occasion to punish him again”, the tribunal noted, but rather to “ensure that public confidence in members of the legal profession can be assured and maintained”.
“Whilst undoubtedly serious, the criminal conduct occurred in the respondent’s private life. No legal practitioner should be engaged in any criminal conduct, let alone the seriously culpable business of drug trafficking,” the tribunal said.
“But it is relevant to have regard to the fact that this conduct was not committed as part of or in the course of the respondent’s practice as a lawyer.”
Taking into account all circumstances, including evidence of Mr Munt’s rehabilitation, the tribunal was not satisfied that he was not a fit and proper person to practice law or that there was a probability he would be permanently unfit to practice law.
It was, therefore, not appropriate to make an order to remove him from the roll, it surmised.
“That being said, this is a case of serious professional misconduct, albeit misconduct which did not occur in connection with legal practice. The public is entitled to expect that the legal practitioners who serve it are themselves law-abiding citizens and are not, despite whatever unfortunate personal circumstances might prevail, engaged in criminal conduct in their private lives,” the tribunal said.
“In assessing the appropriate orders to be made, it is also necessary to note that, whilst the respondent’s rehabilitation in this case militates against the necessity for an order to reflect personal deterrence, there does remain an element of general deterrence. Practitioners must be aware that engagement by them in criminal conduct will attract serious consequences in their professional lives.”
In the view of the tribunal, the serious nature of the offending conduct which underpinned the professional misconduct and the protection of the public warranted the making of an order that Mr Munt be suspended from practice by prohibiting him from applying for a practising certificate for a specified period.
“Having regard to the seriousness of the case, the need for general deterrence, and the need to ensure public confidence in the respondent as an individual and the profession generally, the tribunal has concluded that the respondent should be prohibited from applying for a practising certificate for a period of five years from the date of his conviction.”
As such, it was ordered that Mr Munt not be granted a practising certificate before the end of the period of five years commencing 8 April 2015, that he be reprimanded and ordered to pay costs.
