KMB v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (Queensland)

This case considers an appeal from a decision of the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board that the appellant was not a fit and proper person for the purposes of admission to the legal profession. The appellant had been a young man when he had committed a number of serious offences, although notably at the time he did not believe that he was committing any offence. The appellant had undertaken counselling following his convictions, was no longer engaged in the conduct which had led to his offending, and had displayed candour and had taken responsibility for his actions. In those circumstances, the Court allowed the appeal.

Sofronoff P, Gotterson JA and Douglas J

28 April 2017

The appellant applied to the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board, pursuant to s 32(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2007, for a declaration that certain matters would not, without more, adversely affect the Board’s assessment as to whether he was a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession. [1]. In October 2016, the Board notified the appellant that it had refused to make the declaration sought. [1]. The appellant appealed against that refusal. [1].

In brief, the appellant disclosed that in November 2008, he had pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful sodomy and to two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16. [5]. The offending conduct occurred in circumstances where the appellant was working as a male escort. [7]. In March 2007, he received a phone call from a person responding to one of his advertisements in the newspaper. [8]. The appellant met the client on two occasions and engaged in various sexual acts. [8]. The client turned out to be a 15 year old boy. [8].

Relevantly, the appellant believed that the age of consent for homosexual acts between consenting adults was, at the time, 16. [10]. He did not believe he was committing any offence. [10]. When police attended the appellant’s house and questioned him, the appellant was “cooperative and candid and revealed the truth about his meetings with the boy”. [12]. In November 2008, the appellant pleaded guilty before a Magistrate, and was convicted, although no conviction was recorded. [12]–[14].

The Court took into account the fact that the appellant had sought out psychological counselling “almost immediately after he was charged and continued with his therapy for almost a year thereafter”. [15]. It also noted the evidence of a forensic psychiatrist who provided a report for the purposes of the appellant’s application to the Board. [16]. The opinion provided in the report was that the appellant was “very remorseful about his offending” and that he had “demonstrated strong commitment to work, career and community activities, particularly over the last eight years, and [was] strongly focused on living a productive and successful life, hopefully as a lawyer”. [16].

The Court noted that it had been 10 years since the offences were committed; the appellant had not engaged in any further work as a male escort, he had graduated from the Queensland University of Technology with first class honours, and had also worked as a paralegal and as an assistant to a practising barrister. [18]. The Court also observed that he had “not sought to minimise the character of the conduct in which he engaged or to forego responsibility for it”. [19]. Taking these matters into account, and the fact that he was a relatively young man at the time of the offending, the Court was not satisfied that these matters demonstrated “such an ongoing flaw in the appellant’s character that he could not be considered a fit and proper person to be admitted”. [22].

The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and made the declaration sought. [23].

J English