Re Sousa[2025] QSC 56

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Introduction

1. [1]
   Mr Benjamin Millmann (“the objector”) has objected to the admission of Chanel Elizabeth Sousa (“Ms Sousa”) as a solicitor.
2. [2]
   This trial has occurred pursuant to an order of the Court of Appeal of 5 August 2024, which relevantly provided:

“…

1. 3.Pursuant to s 61 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, the application is remitted to a single judge of the trial division identified by the Senior Judge Administrator, for the determination by trial of questions of fact arising in the application, in accordance with the following orders...”

3. [3]
   The reference to the “following orders” above is a reference to a series of procedural orders whereby the objector was to produce a points of objection, and Ms Sousa was to produce a response to the points of objection, and then each serve their evidence-in-chief via affidavits. The points of objection and response to the points of objection were to essentially act as pleadings so as to identify the scope of the particular objections which were pressed and thereby provide clear boundaries for the subject matter of the trial.
4. [4]
   In addition to the objector and Ms Sousa, the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (“the Board”) is also a party to the proceeding.  The Board was authorised to file its own affidavit material.
5. [5]
   Ultimately, three separate bases of objection were identified.
6. [6]
   These reasons will be organised so as to deal with each basis of objection by setting out the relevant findings of fact consistent with order 3 of the Court of Appeal’s order of 5 August 2024.
7. [7]
   Given the serious nature of the allegations for objections 2 and 3, it is appropriate to apply^[1] the Briginshaw^[2] standard.
8. [8]
   I have found that each of the three grounds of objection have not been made out.
9. [9]
   This accorded with the final submissions of both the Board and Ms Sousa. The objector did not make any final submissions but left the matter to the Court’s judgment.

First objection

10. [10]
    The first objection was contained in paragraph [1(a)] of the points of objection.  It provided as follows:

“Whether Ms Sousa has used her relationship with Mr. Seth Gilson, a police officer, to receive information obtained in the course of a police investigation, in order to establish a relationship between her former employer, Chomley Family Law, and Mr Millmann’s former partner?”

11. [11]
    Ultimately, I find that Ms Sousa did not use her relationship with Mr Seth Gilson, a police officer, to receive information obtained in the course of a police investigation, in order to establish a relationship between her former employer, Chomley Family Law, and the objector’s former partner.  My reasons for so finding are as follows.
12. [12]
    On 8 July 2022, Ms Sousa began working at Chomley Family Law as a legal secretary.  No written contract of employment was entered into.
13. [13]
    At that time, Ms Sousa was a law student at a university but was not admitted to practise law.
14. [14]
    In the position of legal secretary, Ms Sousa would perform administrative tasks under the direction of admitted solicitors.  This included producing drafts of emails and documents under those solicitors’ directions and then administratively sending such emails and documents after they had been finalised by the solicitors.
15. [15]
    At that time, and at all times following, Ms Sousa was in a domestic relationship with a Senior Constable Seth Gilson (“SC Gilson”).
16. [16]
    On 20 November 2022, SC Gilson attended the house of the objector in his capacity as a police officer.  This attendance was in consequence of a complaint having been made by the objector’s former partner to the police.  That complaint related to alleged domestic violence.
17. [17]
    On 21 November 2022, the former partner of the objector retained Chomley Family Law to represent her in relation to a family law dispute.
18. [18]
    The objector gave evidence that at a later date he had come to suspect that Ms Sousa had used information obtained from SC Gilson via their domestic relationship, to establish the solicitor/client relationship between the objector’s former partner and Chomley Family Law.  The objector gave evidence that while this was his suspicion which he believed he reasonably held at the time, he did not have direct evidence of this fact.
19. [19]
    Ms Sousa gave evidence via affidavit and under cross-examination directly disputing, amongst other things, the first objection. 
20. [20]
    As part of her process of putting evidence before the Court in response to the first objection, Ms Sousa sought to obtain affidavit material from her former employer, Chomley Family Law.  A series of emails over time between Ms Sousa and a Ms Micaela Chomley of Chomley Family Law evidenced the significant efforts made by Ms Sousa to obtain such affidavit material from Chomley Family Law.
21. [21]
    The emails revealed a continued refusal by Chomley Family Law to provide the requested affidavit evidence.
22. [22]
    On 2 February 2024, and as part of these communications, Ms Chomley wrote an email to Ms Sousa which provided, in part, as follows:

“Dear Chanel,

Thank you for providing me with the notice of objection on Monday 29 January 2024 at 5.26pm, after Toby requested you provide this to me.

This has now provided further information as to the allegations made by Ben Millman, and it is substantially more serious than you first suggested.

I have spoken to the QLS Ethics department, and they then directed me to Lexon.

Unfortunately, based on those discussions, and your involvement in the file, I do not think that me providing an affidavit will assist you, and in fact it may be detrimental to you.

I wish you all the best with your admission.”

23. [23]
    As a result of her refusal to give affidavit evidence, Ms Chomley was subpoenaed by Mr Millmann to give evidence in the trial.  Ms Chomley then produced two affidavits which she provided to the parties pre-trial.  Those affidavits were tendered at trial and Ms Chomley was then cross-examined. 
24. [24]
    As part of Ms Chomley’s affidavit evidence, she exhibited an email of 22 November 2022 generated within her firm which identified, amongst other things, certain details of the circumstances surrounding the formation of the retainer of the objector’s former partner with Chomley Family Law.  Other parts of that email are redacted because it recorded similar details of the circumstances surrounding the formation of other contemporaneous retainers of different clients of Chomley Family Law which have no connection to the present proceeding.  The email records that initial contact was made by the objector’s former partner with Chomley Family Law at 10.03 am on 21 November 2022.  It also recorded how the former partner of the objector had come to contact Chomley Family Law.  This was recorded as “Google”. The email then recorded details of which solicitor had taken the initial contact, that there was no conflict identified, what legal issue the retainer was for, that the file had been opened, and that the cost documents had been sent.
25. [25]
    There was nothing in that contemporaneous email which suggested that the contact which had been made with Chomley Family Law by the objector’s former partner had come about as a result of something done by, or known by, SC Gilson or Ms Sousa. 
26. [26]
    SC Gilson gave evidence in this proceeding by affidavit in support of Ms Sousa’s dispute of each of the objections, and he was cross-examined on his affidavits.
27. [27]
    SC Gilson in cross-examination gave evidence that he had not said anything about Chomley Family Law to the former partner of the objector.  His evidence was that he had advised the former partner of the objector on 20 November 2022 that she would need to seek legal advice and possibly call Relationships Australia.  He identified that he had advised her about Relationships Australia in relation to mediation for a child custody dispute.
28. [28]
    I accept SC Gilson’s evidence on this issue.  He had attended a complaint about alleged domestic violence.  His advice to a complainant that she should seek legal advice or consider contacting Relationships Australia in response to an alleged domestic violence incidence is hardly surprising.  I take judicial notice that Relationships Australia is a well-known not-for-profit entity which supplies, amongst other things, support services in the area of domestic violence.
29. [29]
    In the period after 21 November 2022, and as part of her administrative tasks which she carried out as a legal secretary, Ms Sousa caused certain emails to be sent on the file of the former partner of the objector. None of the emails were put into evidence.  There was no evidence put before the Court which suggested that her role in the sending of the emails was other than administrative in nature.
30. [30]
    On 16 December 2022, Ms Sousa had her employment at Chomley Family Law terminated.  Ms Sousa was not given an explanation for the termination, even though she had expressly sought it at the time.
31. [31]
    Ms Chomley, in her affidavit evidence, said the termination had occurred because Ms Sousa had been making mistakes in the course of her employment.  This was said to have included not completing tasks, making typographical errors and similar matters.
32. [32]
    Ms Chomley gave evidence that the termination was not on the basis of any purported misuse of confidential information.  Ms Chomley gave evidence that she was unaware of any alleged misuse of confidential information or breach of confidential information by Ms Sousa during her employment.
33. [33]
    I accept this evidence of Ms Chomley.  There was no reason to doubt its veracity.
34. [34]
    I turn next to the curious wording of Ms Chomley’s email of 2 February 2024 as follows:

“…I do not think that me providing an affidavit will assist you, and in fact it may be detrimental to you...”

35. [35]
    It was explained by Ms Chomley that this statement only related to the fact that Ms Sousa had performed work on the file. That work was identified to be secretarial work of an administrative nature. 
36. [36]
    Ms Chomley gave evidence in cross-examination that her reluctance to give an affidavit was largely as a result of the advice of an ethics counsellor of the Queensland Law Society and a Lexon representative, both of whom gave her advice to the effect that she should not provide an affidavit.  Ms Chomley also gave evidence that she did not want to get involved with the proceeding in circumstances where, on 29 January 2024, she had seen the 1 December 2023 notice of objection which had made serious allegations against Ms Sousa.
37. [37]
    Again, I accept Ms Chomley’s evidence on these matters.
38. [38]
    Ms Chomley’s evidence explained the curious wording in the email and the source of her reluctance to provide an affidavit.
39. [39]
    I find that the 2 February 2024 email and the reluctance of Ms Chomley to give evidence were not motivated by Ms Chomley actually believing that Ms Sousa had engaged in some inappropriate conduct, and that she had never held a belief to that effect.
40. [40]
    The objector accepted in cross-examination that in light of the evidence of Ms Chomley, including the internal email of 22 November 2022, that it would now be incorrect to maintain that Ms Sousa had used her relationship with SC Gilson to receive information from the police investigation, in order to establish a relationship between her former employer, Chomley Family Law, and Mr Millmann’s former partner. He confirmed this concession at the end of the trial.
41. [41]
    There was, in fact, no evidence that Ms Sousa had obtained in November 2022 any information from SC Gilson in relation to his interaction with the objector and the objector’s former partner on 20 November 2022.
42. [42]
    I find that:

    1. in November 2022, Ms Sousa did not obtain any information from SC Gilson concerning his interactions with the objector and his former partner on 20 November 2022; and
    2. consequently, Ms Sousa did not use any such information to establish a relationship between her former employer, Chomley Family Law, and Mr Millman’s former partner.
43. [43]
    I find that the evidence supports on the balance of probability that the former partner of the objector had located Chomley Family Law via a Google search, and had then, as a result of that search, contacted Chomley Family Law and retained them on 21 November 2022.
44. [44]
    I find the first ground of objection has not been established on the evidence before the Court.

Second objection

45. [45]
    The second objection was contained in paragraph [1(b)] of the points of objection.  It provided as follows:

“Whether Ms Sousa has made a false allegation of stalking against Mr. Millmann?”

46. [46]
    Ultimately, I find that Ms Sousa has not made a false allegation of stalking against the objector.
47. [47]
    I raised in open court that I did not regard this objection as requiring the Court to determine if, as a matter of fact, the objector engaged in the stalking of Ms Sousa. None of the parties suggested that I should make such a finding. The Board made clear by its counsel’s submissions that it did not ask the Court to make such a finding.
48. [48]
    Accordingly, I will not make any findings on this issue.
49. [49]
    However, the parties are in agreement that this objection involves at least the following issues:

    1. whether Ms Sousa made an allegation of stalking against the objector; and
    2. if so, whether that allegation was false, or made without a reasonable basis.
50. [50]
    I note that the objector proposed some wider issues but these two issues are sufficient to dispose of the objection.
51. [51]
    As identified in the findings of fact made for the first objection, on 20 November 2022, SC Gilson had responded to a complaint concerning alleged domestic violence made by the former partner of the objector.  SC Gilson had interacted with the objector on 20 November 2022 in response to this complaint.
52. [52]
    In cross-examination by the Board, SC Gilson gave evidence that after the initial contact with the objector in November 2022 he did have cause to further investigate the objector.  That was identified as being in April 2023.  I accept this evidence.
53. [53]
    On 20 April 2023, SC Gilson attended the objector’s premises to execute a search warrant in respect of an investigation which was ongoing in relation to alleged stalking by the objector, of the objector’s former partner.
54. [54]
    SC Gilson gave evidence that the nature of the stalking allegation was that the objector was alleged to have placed a tracking device under his former partner’s vehicle and was alleged to have been tracking her movements for some time.  At that time, SC Gilson was the investigating officer for this stalking complaint.
55. [55]
    SC Gilson identified that he continued the investigation of the stalking complaint after the execution of that search warrant.
56. [56]
    An email chain ending 22 August 2023 at 2.52 pm between SC Gilson and the former partner of the objector was put into evidence.  The chain of emails commenced with an email from SC Gilson whereby he attached a police statement for the former partner of the objector to read, add to or change, as was applicable.  In that email, SC Gilson pointed to paragraph [20] of the draft statement and requested the former partner of the objector to add in at that paragraph the name of the person who located the device.^[3]  The email also recorded an intention by SC Gilson to attend on the former partner of the objector in order to obtain a signed copy of the statement.
57. [57]
    In a response email, the former partner to the objector stated that she was in the Family Court and her lawyer would like her to enter an affidavit in the Family Court stating that SC Gilson had told her that he was intending to lay charges in October.  She stated, “…would that have any adverse effect on you bringing those charges…?”
58. [58]
    SC Gilson then replied, “…I’d prefer that no information from discussed criminal matters is disclosed in a family law court affidavit.”
59. [59]
    The former partner of the objector, in turn, responded, “No problem, I won’t disclose anything.  Thank you for your quick response.”
60. [60]
    At one stage, SC Gilson was asked a question by counsel for the Board as to what were the further investigations which were undertaken.  In response, SC Gilson identified that those investigations were still current and before the court in a criminal matter.  Properly, that question was not then pressed. 
61. [61]
    SC Gilson identified that in around November 2023 when he had received all of the evidence, he had made a decision to charge the objector with the offence of stalking the objector’s former partner. SC Gilson gave evidence that it had been his responsibility to make that decision.
62. [62]
    I accept this evidence of SC Gilson. 
63. [63]
    SC Gilson identified that 17 November 2023 was chosen by him as the date for charging the objector.  He explained that it was chosen because earlier in that week SC Gilson was working on his own due to staff shortages, whilst on Friday, 17 November 2023 he would have a partner.  SC Gilson identified that it was decided he would team up with two persons on that day for officer safety. He said he had decided to attempt to get the objector to participate in an electronic record of interview prior to charging the objector.  He said that he knew the objector would “possibly most likely decline” the interview, and that he would then arrest the objector for stalking.
64. [64]
    SC Gilson gave evidence in cross-examination that he held the opinion on 17 November 2023 that the objector would likely be taken into custody that day due to the seriousness of the offence he was proposing to charge the objector with, namely stalking.
65. [65]
    I accept the evidence of SC Gilson on all of these issues. No evidence was led which contradicted any of the above evidence. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of this evidence, and it is consistent with SC Gilson’s subsequent conduct on 17 November 2023. 
66. [66]
    Specifically in relation to SC Gilson’s opinion that the objector would likely be taken into custody, I find that this was a reasonable state of mind to have held, given the charge related to stalking in a domestic violence context where a tracking device had allegedly been used. Stalking is an indictable offence punishable by a maximum of five years’ imprisonment (s 359E(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)) or a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment if a domestic relationship exists (s 359E(4)(d) of the Criminal Code).
67. [67]
    On 17 November 2023, SC Gilson first attended at the objector’s address as listed on the police computer system.  He identified that there were no persons present there.
68. [68]
    SC Gilson then made a telephone call to the objector’s mobile telephone number in an attempt to locate the objector to take part in an interview and then to be taken into custody and charged.
69. [69]
    There is no dispute that a telephone conversation occurred between SC Gilson and the objector on 17 November 2023, albeit there is some dispute as to what was said in the conversation.
70. [70]
    In his affidavit of 31 January 2024, SC Gilson said that during the conversation the objector had disclosed that he knew SC Gilson’s girlfriend had applied to be a solicitor.  SC Gilson deposed that he was unaware of how the objector came to know this information.
71. [71]
    In cross-examination by the Board, SC Gilson was asked what else he recalled being said in the conversation.  SC Gilson gave evidence of recalling that the objector told him that he was corrupt and that all police officers at Sippy Downs Police Station were corrupt.  SC Gilson also recalled being told that he should not be involved in the investigation due to a conflict of interest.  SC Gilson recalled that he asked if the objector would like to speak to another investigator, to which the objector declined and said SC Gilson should speak to the objector’s legal representative.  SC Gilson recalled asking who that was, and was then provided with a name by the objector.  SC Gilson recalls that he asked for a telephone number but was told to find out for himself, and then the phone call ended. 
72. [72]
    SC Gilson was asked in cross-examination whether the objector specifically used Ms Sousa’s name, to which SC Gilson said that the objector had not, and said that the objector had said, “I know who you are - your girlfriend is.  I know she’s a - applied to be a solicitor.  I have 14 days to object to that, which I am going to do”, or words to that effect.
73. [73]
    SC Gilson, in cross-examination, gave evidence that he was unaware of how the objector came to know that his girlfriend was applying for admission.  SC Gilson also gave evidence that he was not sure how the objector knew who his girlfriend was.  When asked whether this had come as quite a surprise to him, SC Gilson replied, “Absolutely.”
74. [74]
    I pause here to identify and make findings about certain events which pre-dated 17 November 2023. 
75. [75]
    Ms Sousa gave evidence that on or around 30 October 2023, SC Gilson had called her in order to tell her that he was questioned about his relationship status at Maroochydore Magistrates Court.  She was informed by SC Gilson that a prosecutor had told him of an allegation that he was in a relationship with a solicitor from Chomley Family Law.
76. [76]
    Ms Sousa’s evidence was that both she and SC Gilson were confused as to why this had happened.  Ms Sousa recalled asking him who the solicitor was who he was accused of being in a relationship with.  Ms Sousa’s recollection was that SC Gilson, on that occasion, said it was a Jo Bragg.  Ms Sousa identified in evidence that Joanne Bragg was a solicitor at Chomley Family Law, who she had worked under as a legal secretary.  She recalled that SC Gilson had asked Ms Sousa when she had left Chomley Family Law, to which she had replied “around 16 December 2022”. 
77. [77]
    In cross-examination, Ms Sousa gave evidence that there had been no mention of the objector in this conversation.
78. [78]
    Whilst Ms Sousa said that at the time she considered contacting Chomley Family Law regarding her partner being accused of having a relationship with Joanne Bragg, however she thought it best not to get involved as she was no longer employed by the firm and she and SC Gilson put the incident down to a mistake of fact.
79. [79]
    SC Gilson was asked about this event in cross-examination by the Board.  SC Gilson gave evidence that around 30 October 2023, he had a court hearing in relation to a matter with the objector.  On that occasion, one of the prosecutors came and told him that the objector had alleged that he was sleeping with the solicitor of the objector’s former partner.  SC Gilson said that no names were mentioned at that time, but he said that he had not believed that this was a reference to Ms Sousa, as Ms Sousa was not a solicitor and she did not work for that company.
80. [80]
    SC Gilson gave evidence that he had not spoken to the objector about this allegation.
81. [81]
    The objector gave evidence in re-examination that on 30 October 2023, he, via his barrister and solicitor, disclosed to the police prosecutor that he was aware of a conflict of interest.  The objector accepted in evidence that SC Gilson was not present when this conversation took place, but rather SC Gilson was in another room with other police officers.  Exactly what was said by the objector’s barrister and solicitor to the prosecutor was not in evidence.
82. [82]
    I find that the objector’s barrister did say something to a prosecutor about SC Gilson being in a relationship with someone from the legal representatives of the objector’s former partner.  I broadly accept SC Gilson’s version of what he was told by the prosecutor and Ms Sousa’s recollection of what she was told by SC Gilson.  It is likely that the objector had understood that what had been communicated to the prosecution concerned Ms Sousa and SC Gilson, but either the message to, or the understanding of, the prosecutor was not literally to this effect. 
83. [83]
    The only material difference between Ms Sousa and SC Gilson’s recollection is whether Joanne Bragg was referred to on this day.  I am not in a position to determine which of Ms Sousa’s recollection or SC Gilson’s recollection on this issue is to be preferred.  Ultimately, this discrepancy does not cause me to doubt either of their versions. 
84. [84]
    In a Queensland Police Service (“QPS”) record of 17 November 2023, it was recorded:

“On the 30^th of October 2023 [GILSON] attended Maroochydore Court house in relation to a trial involving [MILLMANN].  On this date [MILLMANN] made allegations that [GILSON] was in a relationship with his ex-partners solicitor at Chomley Family Law.”

85. [85]
    That contemporaneous note was sourced from information supplied by SC Gilson on that date and was consistent with both his and Ms Sousa’s recollections.
86. [86]
    Secondly, on 30 October 2023, the objector lodged a complaint with the Crime and Corruption Commission (“CCC”).  A copy of the complaint was in evidence before the Court.  It contained within it a complaint based on the relationship between SC Gilson and Ms Sousa.  It noted that Ms Sousa had emailed him from her work email account at Chomley Family Law.  It stated, amongst other things, as follows:

“It is my belief, S/C Gilson created a conflict of interest with referring my former partner to his girlfriends legal firm and has subsequently engaged in serious misconduct.

In the presence of this clear conflict of interest and S/C Gilson’s deliberate lack of disclosing this personal interest conflict, he along with his girlfriend Chanel Sousa have in a concerted attempt tried to influence and advance my former partners family law application at the detriment of myself, which has mostly been successful.”

87. [87]
    In that same complaint document under the heading “Date of the alleged incident(s)”, the dates 20 November 2022 and 20 April 2023 were recorded.
88. [88]
    The objector’s evidence was that he caused the written complaint to be made to the CCC after the court appearance on 30 October 2023.
89. [89]
    No evidence was led that this complaint to the CCC had been brought to the attention of either SC Gilson or Ms Sousa prior to the relevant events on 17 November 2023.
90. [90]
    Thirdly, on 14 November 2023, Ms Sousa drove from the Sunshine Coast to Brisbane and filed her admission documents.  This included her originating application for admission as a solicitor.
91. [91]
    Fourthly, on 14 November 2023, the objector had attended Maroochydore Magistrates Court in respect of a domestic violence application.  A copy of the transcript of that hearing was put into evidence.
92. [92]
    At that hearing, the objector had expressly raised the issue of a conflict of interest.  The objector had explained to the Magistrate on that occasion:

“The arresting officer who also issued the PPN.  He’s in a domestic relationship and lives with the legal secretary who’s due to be admitted to practice law from the firm that represents my former spouse.”^[4]

93. [93]
    The learned magistrate asked who that was and the following exchange occurred:

“RESPONDENT:  Shanelle Souza is the legal secretary that will be admitted. No doubt - - -

HIS HONOUR:  And who’s the - who’s the police?

RESPONDENT: Seth Gilson.  This was raised with Mr Bowell, the other police prosecutor, two weeks ago.

…

RESPONDENT:  I’ve made a complaint to the CCC so I’m sure that’ll come out as well.

…”^[5]

94. [94]
    The objector accepted in cross-examination that SC Gilson had not been present in court when these statements were made. 
95. [95]
    SC Gilson, in cross-examination by the objector, identified that:

    1. he was not in court that day; and
    2. he would only be updated on the outcome of a DV hearing in which he was listed as the applicant if he was required to go to court. 
96. [96]
    Whilst I accept that the objector raised the conflict issue in court, I also accept the evidence of SC Gilson that he was not at the court and that he had not been updated about what had occurred.  There was no evidence led to support that SC Gilson had been told the substance of what was said in court on 14 November 2023 prior to the events of 17 November 2023.
97. [97]
    I note that the 14 November 2023 court event was not referred to in the QPS record of 17 November 2023 which was in evidence.  If SC Gilson had been told of the 14 November 2023 court event, it would most likely have been disclosed by him and recorded in that contemporaneous document of 17 November 2023 which was, in part, derived from information provided by SC Gilson on that date.
98. [98]
    I will now return to the telephone call of 17 November 2023 between the objector and SC Gilson.  The objector’s recollection of the conversation on 17 November 2023 was to the following effect:

• SC Gilson contacted him by telephone.
• SC Gilson wanted to speak to him.
• At that time, the objector said he was alarmed because SC Gilson was looking for him and the objector knew that at the same time, Ms Sousa’s name had been published for the purposes of her admission as a solicitor.  The objector said he thought it was highly irregular and he was in fear for his life.  The context for this evidence is that the objector had been subscribing to the Queensland Law Reporter publication for three to four months solely for the purpose of identifying when Ms Sousa applied for admission.  The objector had seen her name as an applicant for admission very shortly before the telephone call took place.  He had seen her name on that occasion when he searched an electronic copy of the Queensland Law Reporter publication which had been emailed to him that day.
• The objector then said in the call, “What do you want?” and SC Gilson said, “I’ve got a job to do. I need to speak to you.”  The objector then said, “What about?”  The objector said that SC Gilson responded with, “I can’t tell you.”  The objector responded, “Well, we have already raised the conflict of interest complaint.  You can either speak to my solicitor or recuse yourself.  I find it highly irregular that you’re looking for me at the same time your missus’ name is published in the Queensland Law Reporter where there is a 14 day objection period.”

99. [99]
    The objector said that he did not mention Ms Sousa’s actual name and did not, during the call, say that he intended to object to the admission of Ms Sousa.  The objector said that he did not threaten SC Gilson whatsoever. The objector, in cross-examination, did not accept that SC Gilson’s call was on official police business.
100. [100]
     There is a dispute between the two recollections of the telephone call as to whether the objector said something to the effect that he was going to object to the admission of Ms Sousa.  Both versions of the call are consistent in saying that Ms Sousa’s name was not expressly used.  However, reference to either SC Gilson’s girlfriend (SC Gilson’s recollection) or SC Gilson’s missus (the objector’s recollection) would have been sufficient to identify in SC Gilson’s mind that it was Ms Sousa being referred to.
101. [101]
     I find that the recollection of SC Gilson is more likely to be correct as to whether the objector said on this occasion that he would be objecting to Ms Sousa’s admission. I do so for the following reasons.
102. [102]
     First, in the contemporaneous QPS record of 17 November 2023, an entry recorded SC Gilson’s account of what occurred in the telephone call as follows:

“Further mentioned [GILSON] was in a relationship with someone from Chomley and that [GILSON’S] girlfriend had recently applied to the courts to become a solicitor.  Further stated there is a 14-day objection period to which he will be objecting based on [GILSON] and the other Sippy Downs police being corrupt.”

103. [103]
     That contemporaneous record was made shortly after the telephone call by another officer, in circumstances where SC Gilson had been the provider of that information.
104. [104]
     Secondly, other evidence supports that as at 17 November 2023, on the balance of probabilities, the objector then had a present intention to object to the admission of Ms Sousa and that it would have been something which was at the forefront of his mind.
105. [105]
     The starting point of this evidence concerns how the objector came to know of Ms Sousa’s existence and that she would be seeking admission as a solicitor in the future.
106. [106]
     The objector’s evidence is that sometime after the execution of the search warrant in April 2023, SC Gilson came up as a suggested friend for him on Facebook.  The objector said that he clicked on SC Gilson’s Facebook profile, which the objector believed was set to ‘private’. The objector said he then put SC Gilson’s full name in the Facebook search bar and that photographs in which SC Gilson had been ‘tagged’ came up, including a photograph of SC Gilson hugging a woman who was ‘tagged’ in the photograph as “Chanel Chanel.” The objector explained that even if you set your Facebook to certain privacy settings, photographs such as these may still come up.  The objector then said out of curiosity he searched the term “Chanel Chanel” in Facebook, which resulted in photographs which appeared to have the same woman ‘tagged.’  In one of the photographs, the objector said he identified someone he knew which seemed “weird” to him.  That particular tagged photo was at a moot court in which the person previously tagged as “Chanel Chanel” was with a person called Erica Zammit, who the objector identified was a civilian prosecutor for the QPS.  The objector then typed, “Chanel, solicitor, Sunshine Coast” into a general search engine and Ms Sousa’s LinkedIn profile came up.  In Ms Sousa’s LinkedIn profile, the objector identified her name “Chanel Sousa” and that she had listed that she had worked at Chomley Family Law. 
107. [107]
     The objector said that this had automatically triggered a recollection of seeing the name somewhere, so he then went through his emails and found that she had emailed his solicitors on occasions.
108. [108]
     In cross-examination by the Board, the objector identified that he had then subscribed to the Queensland Law Reporter publication some three to four months prior to 17 November 2023.  The following exchange then occurred in cross-examination:

“Can I ask why you subscribed to it; do you just have a general interest in it or was there a specific reason?‑‑‑I was going to object to her admission.  That is why.

So you were looking – the reason that you subscribed to the publication was because, if and when Ms Sousa applied for admission, you were planning on objecting to it?‑‑‑Yes.  Based on my – my, uh ‑ ‑ ‑

But ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ issues with the conflict of interest complaint.”^[6]

109. [109]
     Elsewhere in the objector’s evidence, he said that in general terms he knew that a person finishes their degree, graduates, does their practical legal training and then seeks to get admitted. 
110. [110]
     In light of this evidence, I find that:

     1. the objector had been subscribing for three to four months prior to 17 November 2023 to the Queensland Law Reporter publication solely for the purpose of identifying when Ms Sousa applied for admission as a solicitor for the specific purpose of his objecting to her admission;
     2. the objector had a long-standing intention to object to Ms Sousa’s admission;
     3. the long-standing intention subsisted at 17 November 2023;
     4. after months of reviewing the Queensland Law Reporter for Ms Sousa’s anticipated application, the objector had discovered on 17 November 2023 that Ms Sousa had lodged her application; and
     5. this discovery occurred very shortly prior to the relevant telephone call with SC Gilson on 17 November 2023. 
111. [111]
     Thirdly, prior to 17 November 2023, the objector had been upset about what was happening in relation to the domestic violence complaint which had been made by his former partner, and in relation to Family Court proceedings that had been on foot.  At one stage, the objector described himself as feeling “lost” and that he was going to give up the whole Family Court stuff and abandon his sons and everything like that, and he was just going to leave to go to Ukraine.  The objector gave evidence that he had stewed for ages after he had identified the relationship between Ms Sousa and SC Gilson.  The objector described this time as being extremely upsetting. I accept the evidence of the objector that he had subjectively felt very upset about the matters referred to and had “stewed” on what he subjectively regarded as a conflict.
112. [112]
     Given the above three sets of findings of fact, it seems likely on the balance of probability that the objector had said in the relevant telephone call that he was going to object to the admission of Ms Sousa. It had been pressing on his mind for some time and reflected what had been a long-standing intent.
113. [113]
     Accordingly, I find that in the telephone call on 17 November 2023, the objector told SC Gilson that he was going to object to the admission of Ms Sousa.
114. [114]
     I turn then to what occurred after the call.
115. [115]
     SC Gilson gave evidence that he called Ms Sousa after the phone call and asked her about the 14 day objection, as he did not know anything about it.  At this time, Ms Sousa explained to him that it was part of her admission process and she then asked how the objector knew about it, as there were only a few people who knew that she had applied.
116. [116]
     In cross-examination by the Board, SC Gilson accepted that various contemporaneous entries which were made in the 17 November 2023 QPS record would have been sourced from him, and that the information for a number of those entries would have come from discussions he had with Ms Sousa on 17 November 2023. By this evidence, SC Gilson accepted that he had been told a variety of things by Ms Sousa beyond his immediate recollection set out above.
117. [117]
     Ms Sousa gave evidence that she recalled a number of conversations with SC Gilson on 17 November 2023.  Her evidence was not clear as to the start time of the first call, but she deposed to the first call ending around 1.12 pm to the following effect:

• SC Gilson had called her to ask about her process for application as a solicitor.
• Ms Sousa told SC Gilson that she had filed the application Form 1 with the Supreme Court, including placing a Form 9 in the Supreme Court Registry to notify of her intention to apply, and had provided a copy of that to the Board.
• SC Gilson asked if there was an online platform where someone could find out about her application.
• Ms Sousa told him that the Queensland Law Reporter advertisement was put on a website which was accessible to the public and which contained her Form 9.  Ms Sousa said that she had provided all of that information to the Board.
• Ms Sousa asked what the cause for SC Gilson’s sudden interest was.
• SC Gilson told Ms Sousa that a man who was going to be arrested that day mentioned that he knew she was applying to be admitted to the legal profession and he asked if she knew anything about it.
• Ms Sousa responded, “No.”
• Ms Sousa said that SC Gilson did not tell her who the person was but disclosed to her that he thought they were being stalked. 
• SC Gilson then asked Ms Sousa as to who she had told about her application.
• Ms Sousa told SC Gilson that she had told her current work colleagues, two old work colleagues, one member of her family, two members of SC Gilson’s family and approximately three friends.  SC Gilson asked for their names, which Ms Sousa told him.
• Ms Sousa asked who the person was that was going to object and what their name was.
• SC Gilson told Ms Sousa that he could not tell her and that he would have to speak to his boss.  SC Gilson asked Ms Sousa to call him back when she was on her lunch break. 

118. [118]
     The second phone call happened at about 1.44 pm and was instigated by Ms Sousa on her lunch break.  Her recollection of it was to the following effect:

• SC Gilson informed Ms Sousa that the man he was going to arrest that day had told him that he knew his girlfriend was applying to be a solicitor and he had 14 days to object, and that he was going to do so.  SC Gilson told Ms Sousa that this man had accused him of being corrupt.  SC Gilson asked Ms Sousa again if she knew the person.
• Ms Sousa asked the person’s name and SC Gilson told her it was the objector’s name, “Ben Millmann”.  Ms Sousa then responded, “Ben Millmann…no I don’t know this person or the name, who is he?”
• SC Gilson told her that the former partner of the objector was a client of Chomley Family Law, to which Ms Sousa responded that she had not worked there for such a long time, almost a year, and probably did not know who his former partner was.
• SC Gilson then asked Ms Sousa what the dates were that she had worked at Chomley Family Law, and Ms Sousa told SC Gilson that she had started worked in July 2022 and left around 16 December 2022.  Ms Sousa offered to get the exact date, but SC Gilson said it was okay and that it could be found out later.
• SC Gilson told Ms Sousa that the name of the solicitor for the former partner of the objector was Joanne Bragg, however, Ms Sousa said that SC Gilson would not tell her the name of the former partner of the objector, who was the client of Chomley Family Law.
• Ms Sousa said that Joanne Bragg had many matters when she worked for her at Chomley Family Law, and she did not remember any of her matters concerning a “Ben Millmann” and therefore she must not have had anything to do with it or it was a matter Joanne Bragg had got after Ms Sousa had left Chomley Family Law.
• SC Gilson then told Ms Sousa that he would call her back later and he would let her have some lunch.  The phone call ended at 1.52 pm.

119. [119]
     The third telephone call happened at about 2.02 pm and was instigated by Ms Sousa.  Her recollection of it was to the following effect:

• Ms Sousa asked whether she should be concerned about her safety walking back to her car that evening. 
• SC Gilson told Ms Sousa she should be okay, as the police were out looking for the objector, however SC Gilson stated that Ms Sousa needed to be mindful of where she walked and where she parked her car.
• SC Gilson said that he would talk to her at home later as he was busy at work trying to figure it all out.

120. [120]
     In cross-examination by the Board, Ms Sousa was taken to the QPS record of 17 November 2023 which had been authored by an Officer Kowaltzke.  Ms Sousa gave evidence that she had only spoken to SC Gilson on 17 November 2023 and had not spoken to Officer Kowaltzke or anyone else at the QPS.  However, she readily accepted that certain of the information in the QPS record could only have come from her responses to questions that SC Gilson had asked in the various calls on 17 November 2023.  One particular entry that she identified as falling into this category was as follows:

“The AGG coming into the office with a small child about a property settlement with the RESP. This is her only interaction with the AGG.”

121. [121]
     Ms Sousa gave evidence that “AGG” must have been a reference to the objector’s former partner. Ms Sousa accepted that she would have told SC Gilson this information in their telephone calls.  This acceptance by Ms Sousa must therefore also be an acceptance that at some stage during the various telephone calls SC Gilson had told her the name of the objector’s former partner.
122. [122]
     SC Gilson also accepted that this was an example of something Ms Sousa must have told him on the telephone and which he then provided to Officer Kowaltzke.
123. [123]
     Ms Sousa gave evidence that at about 1.54 pm on 17 November 2023 she had called the Board to see whether the threat made by the objector would be something she would need to provide in an affidavit of compliance.  Ms Sousa gave evidence that she spoke to a young woman who advised her that nothing could be done until an objection was received. The young woman asked her if she knew what the objection would be about and Ms Sousa said that she did not know.
124. [124]
     Ms Sousa gave evidence that on the evening of 17 November 2023, sometime after 5.00 pm when Ms Sousa had finished work, she discussed her application in detail with SC Gilson.  Ms Sousa’s recollection was that the discussion included what she had to do, when and how she had to do things, and who she had told about her application, and trying to figure out the connection and how the objector knew she had made an application.  SC Gilson advised Ms Sousa that as a result of the objector’s mention of her, the objector would be charged with stalking them.
125. [125]
     Ms Sousa’s evidence was that prior to these phone calls which had all taken place after 1.00 pm on 17 November 2023, she had no knowledge of any possible conflict allegation being raised by the objector. 
126. [126]
     Ms Sousa also gave evidence that she recalled being informed by SC Gilson that once he became aware of the conflict allegation he had reported it to his boss and other stakeholders in the QPS (although Ms Sousa was unaware exactly who they were).
127. [127]
     On 17 November 2023, the objector was arrested and charged with two separate charges of stalking.
128. [128]
     One was the original stalking charge for which SC Gilson had been the investigating officer.  It related to the complaint made by the former partner of the objector of alleged stalking and the alleged use of a tracker on the former partner’s motor vehicle.
129. [129]
     The second was for the alleged stalking of SC Gilson and Ms Sousa, who were each identified in the QPS record of 17 November 2023 as victims. 
130. [130]
     SC Gilson gave evidence that he had not sought the consent of Ms Sousa before making the complaint about the objector to the QPS, but had done so of his own volition, and had done so identifying himself and Ms Sousa as the victims.
131. [131]
     Ms Sousa separately gave evidence that her consent for the making of the complaint about the objector had not been sought. 
132. [132]
     Ms Sousa gave evidence that:

     1. SC Gilson had not asked her if she wanted to put in a stalking complaint against the objector; and
     2. she had not herself made any complaint to the police about stalking. 
133. [133]
     She accepted as correct the proposition put to her by the Board that it was SC Gilson who had made the stalking complaint which had named her as a victim of the complaint.
134. [134]
     I accept the versions of events given by Ms Sousa and SC Gilson set out in the evidence above.  There was nothing in the evidence which would cause me to doubt either of their versions of events. I find that on 17 November 2023:

     1. Ms Sousa and SC Gilson had a series of telephone calls concerning what the objector had said to SC Gilson;
     2. Ms Sousa only spoke to SC Gilson on 17 November 2023 and to no one else at the QPS;
     3. SC Gilson was the sole complainant to the QPS about the conduct of the objector and that he did so without having sought and obtained the consent or authority of Ms Sousa.
135. [135]
     I turn next to the state of knowledge of each of Ms Sousa and SC Gilson of how the objector knew the information disclosed in his telephone call to SC Gilson on 17 November 2023.
136. [136]
     Both SC Gilson and Ms Sousa gave evidence that they were unaware of how the objector could have known that she was being admitted as a solicitor.
137. [137]
     Ms Sousa gave evidence to the following effect:

• She had never met the objector prior to being cross-examined as a witness in this proceeding.
• She deliberately used the words ‘Chanel Chanel’ on her Facebook profile (including in November 2023) because she wanted to keep a level of privacy in respect of SC Gilson’s professional life and her professional life.  In saying this, Ms Sousa gave evidence that they did not keep their relationship concealed. 
• Ms Sousa was concerned on 17 November 2023 that the only link between this person (being the objector), and SC Gilson and herself was that SC Gilson was looking to arrest that person.
• Ms Sousa and SC Gilson had four children residing with them, all of whom were of primary school age in 2023.
• Ms Sousa was concerned for her safety on 17 November 2023, because earlier in the conversation on 17 November 2023, SC Gilson had said concerning things, including that a man he was going to arrest knew about her admission and she believed she had only told a few people about it, so she was really concerned and could not figure out who this person was.

138. [138]
     In the 17 November 2023 QPS record, it was recorded that both Ms Sousa’s Facebook profile and SC Gilson’s Facebook profile were set to private.
139. [139]
     In cross-examination by the objector, Ms Sousa was asked whether on 17 November 2023 she was afraid at any time.  Her answer was, “Yes.”  Ms Sousa was then asked what her state of mind was, to which she replied, “I was afraid.  I was worried. I was panicking. I don’t know what was going on.”  The objector then asked her, “Of a potential objection?” To which Ms Sousa answered, “No.  Of you.”^[7]
140. [140]
     SC Gilson was asked in cross-examination what stalking he thought had occurred on 17 November 2023.  He responded by saying it was unknown how the objector had stalked him before then, and how the objector had the information that he disclosed at that date. 
141. [141]
     The evidence supports the following matters which were known to SC Gilson, Ms Sousa, or both, as at 17 November 2023:

• (for both), on 30 October 2023, a prosecutor had come to SC Gilson and told him that it had been alleged that he was sleeping with the solicitor of the objector’s former partner.  Neither SC Gilson or Ms Sousa thought on 30 October 2023, that this statement was about Ms Sousa.
• (solely in the case of SC Gilson), SC Gilson had, by 17 November 2023, formed a subjective view that the objector had stalked the objector’s former partner by placing a tracking device on her vehicle.  There is no evidence that Ms Sousa was provided with this information on 17 November 2023.
• (for both), on 17 November 2023, in the phone call between SC Gilson and the objector, the objector had disclosed knowledge that the partner of SC Gilson (which was Ms Sousa) was seeking to be admitted as a solicitor and that the objector knew there were 14 days to object, and he was going to object.
• (for both), Ms Sousa had informed SC Gilson on 17 November 2023 that she did not know the objector.  Ms Sousa and SC Gilson mutually communicated to each other to the effect that each individual did not know or understand how the objector had obtained that information.
• (for both), each of them had privacy settings, at least to some level, on their Facebook sites as at November 2023. 
• (for at least Ms Sousa), Ms Sousa knew she was using the descriptor “Chanel Chanel” on Facebook in aid of maintaining privacy for her and SC Gilson’s professional lives.
• (for both), SC Gilson had been seeking to arrest the objector on 17 November 2023.
• (for at least SC Gilson), he was concerned for the safety of his family as at 17 November 2023.  He did not give this evidence directly in respect of 17 November 2023, but gave it indirectly when being asked about a review which was undertaken on 20 November 2023 of a stalking charge and a later decision on 5 December 2023 to withdraw it.  A QPS record for the 20 November 2023 review recorded that there may be insufficient evidence to continue the charge.  Having been taken to that part of the record, the following exchange then occurred between counsel for the Board and SC Gilson:

“Do you know the basis for the conclusion that was sworn there as to why there was insufficient evidence to continue with the charge?‑‑‑Possibly because at the time it was unknown how Mr Millmann became aware of the information that he told me. 

Were you still concerned?  Did you still have a safety concern in respect of Mr Millmann for your family at that time?‑‑‑A hundred per cent, yes. 

And why is that?‑‑‑Ah, given Mr Millmann’s conduct previously. 

Sorry, I should clarify.  When I say, “At that time”, I mean the 5^th of December 2023?‑‑‑Yeah.  Correct.”^[8]

• (for at least Ms Sousa), Ms Sousa was feeling fear on 17 November 2023, arising from the matters identified as being within her knowledge.

142. [142]
     I find that SC Gilson had a reasonable basis to have complained to the QPS about the objector on 17 November 2023.  That reasonable basis was founded on those matters which I have identified that SC Gilson knew or subjectively believed as at 17 November 2023.
143. [143]
     I find it was reasonable in those circumstances for SC Gilson to have reported the matters he did on 17 November 2023 to the QPS and his superiors.
144. [144]
     In saying this, I am not suggesting or finding that the objector, in fact, engaged in stalking in breach of s 359B of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).  Rather, I am finding that:

     1. there was a reasonable basis for SC Gilson to be concerned, at that point, that the objector had engaged in the stalking of him and his partner, Ms Sousa; and
     2. it was reasonable for him to have complained to the QPS about that matter. 
145. [145]
     In making this finding, I have borne in mind ss 359A to 359D of the Criminal Code, which sections deal with unlawful stalking, intimidation, harassment or abuse.  Those provisions included the following:

1. “359B
   What is unlawful stalking, intimidation, harassment or abuse

Unlawful stalking, intimidation, harassment or abuse is conduct—

1. (a)
   intentionally directed at a person (the stalked person); and
2. (b)
   engaged in on any 1 occasion if the conduct is protracted or on more than 1 occasion; and
3. (c)
   consisting of 1 or more acts of the following, or a similar, type—

…

1. (iv)
   monitoring, tracking or surveilling a person’s movements, activities or interpersonal associations without the person’s consent, including, for example, using technology;

Examples of monitoring, tracking or surveilling using technology—

• using a tracking device or drone to track a person’s movements

…

• monitoring a person’s account with a social media platform or online social network

…

1. (d)
   that—

1. (i)
   would cause the stalked person apprehension or fear, reasonably arising in all the circumstances, of violence to, or against property of, the stalked person or another person; or
2. (ii)
   causes detriment, reasonably arising in all the circumstances, to the stalked person or another person.

…

1. 359D
   Particular conduct that is not unlawful stalking, intimidation, harassment or abuse

Unlawful stalking, intimidation, harassment or abuse does not include the following acts—

…

1. (e)
   reasonable conduct engaged in by a person to obtain or give information that the person has a legitimate interest in obtaining or giving.

…”

146. [146]
     Even if, contrary to my finding above, Ms Sousa had been a party to the making of the complaint, I find that she would equally have had a reasonable basis in the circumstances to have made a complaint to the police about the objector.  This reasonable basis would have been founded on the matters which she knew or subjectively believed as at 17 November 2023.
147. [147]
     Even if Ms Sousa had consented to or authorised the making of the complaint, I still would have found that she had not:

     1. made a false complaint about stalking; or
     2. failed to have a reasonable basis to complain about stalking.
148. [148]
     For completeness, I find that SC Gilson also did not:

     1. make a false complaint about stalking; or
     2. fail to have a reasonable basis to complain about stalking.
149. [149]
     Ultimately, whether the objector was charged with stalking as a result of the making of the complaint by SC Gilson did not lie with SC Gilson.  SC Gilson identified that he was not involved in the decision to charge the objector with stalking of himself and Ms Sousa.  I accept this evidence.  It represents what would be expected as standard practice by the QPS, namely that an officer who is a complainant would not investigate his own complaint.  It is also consistent with Officer Kowaltzke making the QPS record on 17 November 2023, which corroborates the involvement of a separate officer in that investigation.
150. [150]
     In conclusion, given that I have found Ms Sousa was not the person who made the complaint and had not authorised or consented to the complaint being made, I find that the second ground of objection has not been made out on the evidence.

Third objection

151. [151]
     The third objection was contained in paragraph [1(c)] of the points of objection.  It provided as follows:

“Whether Ms Sousa and Mr Gilson have colluded to have Mr Millmann remanded in custody in an attempt to prevent Mr Millmann’s objection to Ms Sousa’s admission?”

152. [152]
     The parties are in agreement that this objection involves at least the following issues:

     1. whether Ms Sousa and SC Gilson colluded to have the objector remanded in custody; and
     2. if so, whether this was done in an attempt to prevent the objector’s objection to Ms Sousa’s admission.
153. [153]
     Again, the objector submitted for some broader issues, but these two issues suffice to dispose of the third objection.
154. [154]
     The findings of fact that I have made in respect of objection two essentially provide the basis for a finding that objection three has not been made out on the evidence presented to the Court.  Ultimately, I find that Ms Sousa and SC Gilson did not collude to have the objector remanded in custody in an attempt to prevent the objector’s objection to Ms Sousa’s admission.
155. [155]
     First, I find that it was SC Gilson who was the sole maker of the complaint of stalking to the QPS on 17 November 2023.
156. [156]
     Secondly, I find for the reasons previously identified under the second objection, that SC Gilson had a reasonable basis to make that complaint, including that he feared for the safety of his family.
157. [157]
     Thirdly, I accept the evidence of SC Gilson that his state of mind as at 17 November 2023 was:

     1. that he intended to ultimately charge the objector with one count of stalking in respect of the objector’s former partner; and
     2. that he held the belief that bail would initially be refused, given the seriousness of the charge, including that it was an indictable offence.
158. [158]
     In making this finding, I should note that SC Gilson made clear in his evidence that it would ultimately be for the court to determine if bail should be granted to the objector.
159. [159]
     I find that the reason for the making of the complaint was because SC Gilson held a reasonable belief that he and Ms Sousa may have been stalked by the objector.  I have already set out what SC Gilson knew or subjectively believed as at 17 November 2023.  I am satisfied that SC Gilson was concerned for the safety of his family as at 17 November 2023. There is no direct evidence or inference available on the balance of probability which supports that a reason SC Gilson made the complaint to the QPS was for the purpose of attempting to prevent the objector objecting to Ms Sousa’s admission.
160. [160]
     In cross-examination, both Ms Sousa and SC Gilson gave evidence that they were unaware of whether or not the objector could have objected to the admission of Ms Sousa whilst he was in custody.  I accept this evidence. There was no basis to doubt its veracity.
161. [161]
     In relation to Ms Sousa, I find that she did not collude with SC Gilson to make the complaint to QPS about the conduct of objector.  I find the complaint was made solely by SC Gilson and without the consent or authority of Ms Sousa.
162. [162]
     Even if I had accepted the contrary, I would have found that Ms Sousa had a reasonable basis to have consented to or authorised such a complaint to be made. 
163. [163]
     For completeness, I note that the objector cross-examined SC Gilson concerning a document headed, “Bail affidavit annexure”. An entry on the document identified SC Gilson as the author.  It was dated 17 November 2023.  It had an entry time of 2.50 pm.  That document dealt with a charge 1, which was the alleged unlawful stalking of the objector’s former partner, and a charge 2, which was the alleged unlawful stalking of SC Gilson and Ms Sousa.  SC Gilson gave evidence that:

     1. he was the initial drafter of that document, but he only drafted the part of the document which dealt with charge 1, being the stalking offence for which he was the investigating officer;
     2. he did not draft the second part of that document dealing with charge 2; and
     3. the charge 2 part of the document was drafted by somebody other than him in the QPS.
164. [164]
     I accept that evidence.  As SC Gilson was the complainant and an alleged victim, it is logical that someone else within the QPS would have been dealing with the charge 2. This would have accorded with what would have been expected as standard practice in the QPS.  It was clear from the other QPS record previously discussed that Officer Kowaltzke was involved in charge 2 on the afternoon of 17 November 2023. The charge 2 portion of this document reproduced portions of the other 17 November 2023 QPS record which had been written by Officer Kowaltzke.  I find that the charge 2 section of the “Bail affidavit annexure” was drafted by someone other than SC Gilson, most likely Officer Kowaltzke, or by someone at the direction of Officer Kowaltzke.
165. [165]
     Ultimately, after SC Gilson had given this evidence, no one made any submissions that the “Bail affidavit annexure” somehow supported the alleged collusion of Ms Sousa and SC Gilson as set out in objection three.
166. [166]
     Accordingly, I find that Ms Sousa and SC Gilson did not collude to have the objector remanded in custody for the purpose of attempting to prevent the objector from objecting to Ms Sousa’s admission.
167. [167]
     I find the third ground of objection is not made out on the evidence presented to the Court.

Conclusion

168. [168]
     Having made the various findings, I will make the following orders:

1. 1.This proceeding is adjourned to a date to be fixed for further hearing in the Court of Appeal.
2. 2.The Civil List Manager is to deliver a copy of these findings to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal.
3. 3.Reserve the costs of the proceeding before me to the Court of Appeal.

169. [169]
     I finally note that I ultimately did not have to resort to the Briginshaw standard to support the findings I have made for objections two and three.  The application of this standard to those two objections merely strengthens the foundation of the findings that the objections were not made out.