In the matter of the Legal Practitioners Act 1970 and in the matter of an application by Hinds [2003] ACTSC 11 (11 March 2003)

Last Updated: 14 March 2003

In the matter of the Legal Practitioners Act 1970 and in the matter of an application by Ronald Keith Hinds [2003] ACTSC 11 (13 March 2003)

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - application for admission to practice - importance of good reputation and character - significance of convictions for certain offences - onus on applicant to establish he or she is nonetheless a fit and proper person to be admitted.

Legal Practitioners Act 1970, subs 11(1)

Ex Parte Lenehan [1948] HCA 45; (1948) 77 CLR 403

Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW [1957] HCA 46; (1957) 97 CLR 279

Re B (1981) 2 NSWLR 372.

No. A6989 of 2002

Judges: Higgins CJ, Crispin and Connolly JJ

Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 13 March 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )

) No. A6989 of 2002

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

In the matter of the Legal Practitioners Act 1970 and in the matter of an application by

Ronald Keith Hinds

ORDER

Judges: Higgins CJ, Crispin and Connoly JJ

Date: 13 March 2003

Place: Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. it be declared that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted as a legal practitioner pursuant to subs 11(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1970.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )

) No. A6989 of 2002

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

In the matter of the Legal Practitioners Act 1970 and in the matter of an application by

Ronald Keith Hinds

Judges: Higgins CJ, Crispin and Connoly JJ

Date: 13 March 2003

Place: Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. This is an application for admission as a legal practitioner pursuant to subs 11(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1970.

2. The Law Society neither supports nor opposes the application but appeared by counsel to assist the Court.

3. The applicant was admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Laws by James Cook University on 23 March 2002 and subsequently completed the Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice at the Legal Workshop conducted by the Australian National University. Accordingly, he possesses the necessary educational qualifications for admission to practise. The only real question before us is whether he is a person of sufficiently good character to warrant admission.

4. The applicant, who is of Aboriginal descent, was born on 27 February 1958. The evidence suggests that for most of his adult life he has been a hard working man, often maintaining two jobs to support his family, and that he has generally enjoyed the respect of those who have known him. However, in the affidavits filed in support of his application he has quite properly disclosed the commission of a number of offences.

5. On 24 March 1975 he was convicted of an offence of being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst his blood alcohol content exceeded the prescribed level, on 10 May 1978 he was convicted of making a false complaint to police and on 17 August 1987 he was convicted of a further offence of driving whilst his blood alcohol content exceeded the prescribed level. Having regard to the circumstances in which these offences were committed, the age of the applicant at the time and the years that have passed since their commission, these events do not, of themselves, cast much light on the crucial question of whether the applicant is presently a person of good character.

6. He was also convicted of breaching domestic violence orders on five occasions between March 1993 and January 1996. Any evidence suggesting that an applicant for admission as a legal practitioner has committed offences involving breaches of court orders must obviously be considered very seriously, especially when, as in the present case, those orders were granted to protect another person from a perceived risk of domestic violence. In determining what weight should be given to the commission of such offences the Court will, of course, take into account such factors as the gravity of the particular conduct, the circumstances in which it occurred, the applicant's subsequent conduct and his or her present attitude to that earlier conduct.

7. In the present case, the applicant has not only given evidence as to the circumstances which led to his conviction for each of these offences but has sought to obtain records of the relevant proceedings and has annexed to his second affidavit copies of witness statements tendered in evidence against him. Regrettably, transcripts of the proceedings are apparently no longer available due to the length of time that has elapsed since the proceedings were concluded. What evidence is available suggests that whilst the appellant committed breaches of the relevant order or orders in May, August and October 1993, the conduct that constituted such breaches may not have involved actual domestic violence. The disposition of the matters certainly suggests that the breaches may not have been particularly serious. On the first two occasions the Magistrates who heard the evidence determined that fines were a sufficient penalty and on the third occasion the Magistrate concluded that it was unnecessary to impose any penalty at all. The offences committed in October 1995 and January 1996 seem to have been somewhat more serious and to have involved threats and other intimidatory behaviour. Suspended sentences of imprisonment were imposed for these offences. On no occasion was there any accompanying charge of assault or of any other offence suggesting the application of actual violence.

8. Contrary to popular folklore, the commission of a criminal offence or offences does not automatically result in a person's permanent disqualification from admission as a legal practitioner. However, any applicant for admission bears the onus of establishing that he or she is presently of good reputation and character and evidence of previous misconduct will obviously be taken into account in determining whether that onus has been discharged. It is essential that a legal practitioner be a person of such character that he or she can be trusted to perform his or her duty even in circumstances in which that performance is unlikely to be exposed to scrutiny. Reputation may also be a relevant factor because public confidence in the administration of justice is at least partially dependent upon confidence that those who administer the law, including legal practitioners, are people of integrity who can be trusted to observe and uphold it. See generally Ex Parte Lenehan [1948] HCA 45; (1948) 77 CLR 403; Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW [1957] HCA 46; (1957) 97 CLR 279; and Re B (1981) 2 NSWLR 372. An applicant who has committed a number of serious offences over an extended period will need to point to convincing evidence to establish that, notwithstanding that prior misconduct, he or she is now a person of sufficiently good character to warrant such trust.

9. In the present case, however, the evidence adduced by the applicant is impressive.

10. In addition to filing two detailed applications, the applicant gave oral evidence before us. He proved to be a quietly spoken man who gave evidence in a careful and apparently thoughtful manner. He was clearly ashamed of his previous behaviour and seemed to find it difficult to understand how he could have behaved so badly, even in the months following the death of his father and at a time when he was distressed at the break down of his marriage. He had taken the trouble to obtain access to an audio tape of the threats which had formed the subject of the last offence and said that he had been "sickened" by what he heard. We have no doubt that he gave his evidence honestly and that he sincerely regrets the commission of the offences. We also note that they were committed before he commenced his legal studies.

11. The affidavits of character filed on his behalf establish that his conduct during the last seven years has been exemplary. The deponents not only attest to the absence of any propensity to aggressiveness but speak highly of him as a considerate and compassionate man. That compassion has been reflected in practical attempts to help others. He worked as a field officer with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Legal Service at Townsville in Queensland for some time and has apparently done a great deal to assist the Aboriginal community in that area. He has also provided assistance to the local Victims of Crime Association and advised people seeking criminal injuries compensation. One of the deponents who works as a police prosecutor in Townsville has confirmed that he enjoys good relationships not only with those he has sought to assist but with the local magistrates and court officers and that he has a reputation as a sincere and caring man.

12. Having had the opportunity of assessing his presentation in the witness box, we accept that he now has much greater insight and maturity than he evidently possessed at the time of the commission of the offences and, notwithstanding the concern inevitably engendered by his earlier misconduct, we are satisfied that he is now a fit and proper person to be admitted as a legal practitioner.

13. Since the applicant may wish to have members of his family present for his admission we intend to defer making the necessary formal orders until his wishes are known.

I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Date: 13 March 2003

Counsel for the applicant: Mr B Salmon QC

Solicitor for the applicant: Christopher G Chenoweth

Counsel for the respondent: Mr D Harper

Solicitor for the respondent: Meyer Clapham

Date of hearing: 28 February 2003

Date of judgment: 13 March 2003