Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
A Legal Aid lawyer has protested against her dismissal over conduct connected to her advocacy for foster children.
Angela Jane Armstrong, a long-time foster care advocate, was dumped from her role at Tasmania Legal Aid (TLA) for “an inappropriate and a serious lapse of professional judgement”.
After a bid for an unfair dismissal fell flat, Armstrong appealed to the full bench, but commissioners Samuel Thompson, Tim Lee, and Tanya Cirkovic were unsatisfied with all of her grounds.
In dismissing Armstrong’s submission that the lapse in judgement did not constitute a valid reason for dismissal, the bench said there was “ample evidence” in the original hearing.
“We reject Armstrong’s characterisation of her conduct as a mere ‘lapse in judgement’,” Thompson, Lee, and Cirkovic said.
“She continued her advocacy work during her employment at TLA in circumstances where the conflict of interest was clear.”
In the months before she started with TLA, Armstrong advocated for Person One, who was dissatisfied with Child Safety Services’ decision to return children under their care to the mother, Person Two. Armstrong often signed off correspondence with “[past] foster carer … and lawyer”.
Armstrong also made submissions to the Children’s Commissioner as a “solicitor and barrister admitted to Tasmania and the Federal Court of Australia”, despite being neither a practising solicitor or barrister at the time.
Months after starting at TLA, Armstrong telephoned Person Two and attempted to set up a meeting with Person One.
Although she did not represent herself as being from TLA, she failed to declare the potential conflict with her employer.
In the first hearing, the deputy president said she “leveraged her position as a lawyer for her advocacy”.
On appeal, Armstrong said the deputy president erred by finding she had a “private interest” in Person One’s care and their access to the children, and that insufficient weight was given to the “absence” of Armstrong’s “personal gain”.
This was rejected, with the appeal bench citing that “concepts of private interest … extend beyond personal financial gain”.
“Armstrong had a private interest in advocating for and assisting Person One in that the interest was not the result of her employment,” Thompson, Lee, and Cirkovic said.
“In fact, it was contrary to TLA’s interests.”
Armstrong also failed to dispute findings that the termination was not unfair and not reasonably open; that too much weight was placed on Person Two’s evidence; and insufficient weight was given to her own evidence on the matter.
On the submission that the termination was disproportionate, Armstrong said she did not engage in fraud, dishonesty or corruption, but the bench said absence of these elements “does not mean that the most serious sanction available … was disproportionate”.
Citation: Armstrong v Minister Administering the State Service Act 2000 [2026] TASICFB 3.
