SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND Registrar, Supreme Court of Norfolk Island v Walsh (No 4) [2017] NFSC 7 File number: SC 2 of 2016 Judges: GILMOUR J Date of judgment: 22 December 2017 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – legal practitioner - application to remove solicitor from roll of legal practitioners – whether solicitor guilty of professional misconduct – whether solicitor guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct – failure to comply with a duty to act with integrity and candour as a legal practitioner – failure to respond personally to the Registrar of the Norfolk Island Supreme Court's request for information – making of false, discourteous or offensive statements about other legal practitioners – no breach of duty to know and understand the law Legislation: Norfolk Island Act 1979 (Cth) s 52 Supreme Court Act 1960 (NI) ss 5(1), 5(2) Legal Profession Act 1993 (NI) s 18A(1) Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT) ss 386 and 387 Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) ss 127(1), 127(2) Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) ss 496 and 497 Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) ss 402 and 403 Cases cited: Barwick v Law Society of New South Wales [2000] HCA 2; (2000) 169 ALR 236 Bechara v Legal Services Commissioner (2010) 79 NSWLR 763; [2010] NSWCA 369 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Clyne v NSW Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186 D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1 Fidock v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2013] WASCA 108 Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; (1988) 165 CLR 543 Jago v District Court of NSW [1989] 168 CLR 23 Kennedy v The Council of the Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales (1939) 13 ALJR 563 Law Society of Tasmania v A (a practitioner) [2002] TASCC 9 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Caine [2010] WASAT 178 New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279 O'Halloran v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2013] WASCA 59 Re B [1982] 2 NSWLR 372 Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409 Registrar, Supreme Court of Norfolk Island v Walsh [2016] NFSC 1 Registrar, Supreme Court of Norfolk Island v Walsh (No 2) [2017] NFSC 2 Registrar, Supreme Court of Norfolk Island v Walsh (No 3) [2017] NFSC 4 Weaver v Law Society of New South Wales (1979) 141 CLR 201 Wentworth v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 106 ALR 624 Weston v Central Criminal Courts Administrator [1977] QB 32 Date of hearing: 4–7 September 2017 Registry: Norfolk Island Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 114 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Knowles Solicitor for the Applicant: Sparke Helmore Counsel for the Respondent: The respondent did not appear ORDERS SC 2 of 2017 BETWEEN: REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND Applicant AND: JOHN WALSH OF BRANNAGH Respondent JUDGE: GILMOUR J DATE OF ORDER: 22 DECEMBER 2017 THE COURT DECLARES THAT: 1. The respondent, Mr John Walsh of Brannagh is guilty of professional misconduct under s 18A(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1993 (NI) (LPA) in that he made knowingly false representations: (a) to Dr Ping-Fat Sze, another legal practitioner (the complainant), that it was necessary for the complainant to become a member of the Norfolk Island Bar Association (NIBA) by payment of an amount of AUD 200 to the NIBA as a requirement under the LPA for obtaining registration as a legal practitioner in Norfolk Island, when there was no such requirement; (b) to the complainant and others that the NIBA was a professional representative body for legal practitioners practising in Norfolk Island; and (c) to the Court as well as to members of the public generally through the websites of the Victorian Bar and the International Tribunal of Natural Justice (ITNJ), that: (i) he holds a recognised judicial officer as the 'Chief Justice' of the ITNJ, where such Tribunal is not a proper court of law or Tribunal established under any statute or international treaty or convention of any kind; and that (ii) he is a Knight under the Australian or Imperial honours system, entitling him to use the honorific 'Sir'. 2. Mr John Walsh of Brannagh is guilty of unsatisfactory professional misconduct under s 18A(1) of the LPA in that he: (a) failed to respond personally and within a reasonable time to a response from the Registrar of the Court concerning a complaint as to his professional conduct made by the complainant; and (b) made, knowingly or recklessly, false statements and comments of a discourteous and offensive nature to the Court regarding certain other legal practitioners in Norfolk Island. THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 3. The matter be relisted for further hearing on 5 February 2018 at 10:15AM (AWST) in Perth, as to further orders, if any, consequent upon the declarations made in this matter, including as to costs. 4. The parties have leave to appear at the hearing in Order 3 by way of videoconference from the Court's Melbourne Registry. 5. The applicant file and serve a written outline of submissions together with a minute of proposed orders in relation to the 5 February 2018 hearing by 4:00PM (AWST) 22 January 2018. 6. The respondent file and serve a written outline of submissions in reply together with a minute of proposed orders by 4:00PM (AWST) 29 January 2018 Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GILMOUR J: 1 The respondent, Mr John Walsh of Brannagh has worked as a legal practitioner and lived in Norfolk Island since 1994, from time to time. He has been, and was at all relevant times a barrister since 1983. Since 2008 in order to practice as a legal practitioner in Norfolk Island a practising certificate has been required. This involves a person obtaining registration as a legal practitioner under the Legal Profession Act 1993 (NI) (LPA). From that time, Mr Walsh has held a Norfolk Island practising certificate, and his name is on the Register of Practitioners of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island. The applicant, the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island (Registrar) seeks declarations that Mr Walsh is guilty of professional misconduct, alternatively, of unprofessional conduct. 2 By s 18A(1) of the LPA, this Court, if satisfied that a legal practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct, may, by order, amongst other things direct that his or her name be removed from the Register of Practitioners. The Registrar, consequent upon the declarations sought also seeks such an order. 3 For reasons which I will detail below, I am satisfied that Mr Walsh is guilty of both professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct. I will make declarations accordingly. I advised the parties that I would after consideration of consequential relief until I had determined the issue concerning Mr Walsh's alleged conduct. The allegations 4 The Registrar alleges relevantly that Mr Walsh is guilty of professional misconduct alternatively of unprofessional conduct, in that he: (1) failed to comply with a duty to act with integrity and candour as a legal practitioner by knowingly making false or reckless representations variously as to: (a) the requirements for obtaining registration as a legal practitioner in Norfolk Island (originating application grounds 1(A); (b) a purported Association known as the Norfolk Island Bar Association (the NIBA) (originating application grounds 1(B) and 1(C)); (c) his being a judicial officer, holding appointment as the Chief Justice of the International Tribunal of Natural Justice (ITNJ) (originating application ground 3); and (d) his entitlement to recognition as a Knight under the Australian or Imperial honours system and thereby to use the honorific 'Sir' (originating application ground 3), (2) failed to comply with his duty to know and understand the law (originating application ground 2) (3) failed to respond personally to the Registrar's request for information about a complaint concerning his professional conduct (originating application ground 4); and (4) made false, discourteous or offensive statements about other legal practitioners (originating application ground 5). 5 The grounds are particularised at length. There is a degree of overlap with some of these. The grounds and particulars are annexed to and form part of these reasons, at Annexure A. Jurisdiction and power 6 Mr Walsh submits that this Court has neither jurisdiction nor power to hear this matter. In the event that this jurisdiction and power did exist, Mr Walsh submits, in the alternative, that he is not a solicitor and is not subject to control or discipline by a solicitor's disciplinary tribunal. 7 I do not accept these submissions. 8 The last submission is self-evidently without merit. 9 As to the first submission, pursuant to s 5(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1960 (NI) (Supreme Court Act), this Court has the same original jurisdiction in relation to the territory of Norfolk Island as the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has in respect of the Australian Capital Territory. Section 5(2)(a) prescribes that, without limiting the generality of s 5(l) of the Act, the Court has jurisdiction to 'hear and determine all causes and matters arising under any law'. 10 As the Superior Court of Record of Norfolk Island (s 52 of the Norfolk Island Act 1979 (Cth)), the Court maintains the inherent jurisdiction to discipline legal practitioners: Barwick v Law Society of New South Wales [2000] HCA 2; (2000) 169 ALR 236; Law Society of Tasmania v A (a practitioner) [2002] TASCC 9 at [41], citing Weaver v Law Society of New South Wales (1979) 141 CLR 201. In Weaver, Mason J stated at 207 that disciplinary proceedings were an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of NSW. The High Court affirmed this case in Wentworth v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 106 ALR 624 at 630, after adding at 628-9 that: The jurisdiction or, more accurately, the power to admit, suspend or strike off is one which, of necessity, attends a court system of the kind with which we are familiar in this country. That power or some aspect of it may be conferred by statute. But even if it is, it is a conferral of what would have existed in any event as inherent. 11 In addition to its inherent jurisdiction, this Supreme Court derives power from the provisions of the LPA. Section 21 of that Act provides that the powers there contained in the Act are in addition to the Court's inherent power in relation to the control and discipline of practitioners. 12 Section 18A(1) of the LPA confers disciplinary powers on the Court and relevantly states that: If, on a report under section 18 or otherwise, the court is satisfied that a legal practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct, the court may, by order, do all or any of the following: (a) direct that his or her name be removed from the Register of Practitioners; (b) suspend for such period as the court considers appropriate his or her right to practise in Norfolk Island as a barrister, as a solicitor or as a barrister and solicitor; or (c) impose on him or her a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units. (emphasis added) Other preliminary matters 13 One of the issues that arose at trial was the question of Mr Walsh's knowledge of the relevant conduct or misconduct, and whether, in the alternative, he should have known. I have dealt with this issue below. I have found that Mr Walsh's representations, both as to himself and as to the NIBA, took place and that is sufficient. It is not necessary for me to consider Mr Walsh's state of mind, and whether he should have known that his conduct constituted unprofessional conduct or misconduct, even if he subjectively did not. 14 Mr Walsh submitted that, insofar as the proceeding relates to a complaint made by Mr Ping-Fat Sze, there has been a want of prosecution: Jago v District Court of NSW [1989] 168 CLR 23. He alleges that there is no explanation as to why the matter was not prosecuted for some eight years and claims to have suffered prejudice in that evidence which might support his case - for example, bank statements - has been destroyed. 15 I reject this submission. The Registrar received Mr Sze's complaint on 31 March 2015 and proceeded to investigate it, by: (a) seeking further information from Mr Sze about the complaint; (b) inviting Mr Walsh to respond to the information the subject of the complaint; (c) considering the information given by Mr Walsh in response to the complaint; (d) inviting Mr Sze and third parties to respond to allegations made by Mr Walsh in his response to the complaint; and (e) considering the information given by Mr Sze and those third parties. 16 Following their investigations, the Registrar commenced the proceeding on 14 April 2016. There has been no operative want of prosecution. In any event, Mr Walsh has not demonstrated that he suffered actual prejudice by reason of any asserted delay. He has not demonstrated what, if any, evidence he was unable to adduce thereby. 17 The Respondent then submitted that the test formulated in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 as to the standard of proof is applicable to a case such as this. I accept this submission. In that case, Dixon J relevantly stated that: Except upon criminal issues to be proved by the prosecution, it is enough that the affirmative of an allegation is made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding, are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters "reasonable satisfaction" should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences. 18 However Mr Walsh submits, without more, that the Briginshaw standard is not satisfied in this case. I reject that submission. The allegations levelled against Mr Walsh were, in each case, the subject of cogent and compelling written and oral evidence in support. I have had no difficulty, for the reasons given below, in rejecting Mr Walsh's evidence where it contradicts evidence tendered by the applicant. General legal principles 19 I have assessed each of the allegations against Mr Walsh and determined whether any amount to either professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of s 18A(1) of the LPA. Although, the originating application, includes allegations of 'unprofessional conduct', I take this to mean to 'unsatisfactory professional conduct', given the Registrar's reliance upon s 18A. 20 Unlike other statutory equivalents of the LPA, neither 'unsatisfactory professional conduct' nor 'professional misconduct' is defined in the LPA: cf Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT) ss 386 and 387; Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) ss 496 and 497; Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) ss 402 and 403. 21 However the term 'professional misconduct' is well known to the common law. 22 In Kennedy v The Council of the Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales (1939) 13 ALJR 563, 563-564, Rich J held that professional misconduct: need not fall within any legal definition of wrong doing. It need not amount to an offence under the law. It is enough that it amounts to grave impropriety affecting his professional character and is indicative of a failure either to understand or to practise the precepts of honesty of or fair dealing in relation to the courts, his client or the public. 23 In Fidock v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2013] WASCA 108, the Court observed at [35] that: The test of professional misconduct was originally formulated in relation to medical practitioners in Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration (1984) 1 QB 750. It was held that professional misconduct consisted in behaviour on the part of the practitioner which would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful and dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competency. That criterion has been applied in relation to both solicitors and barristers: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v Costello [1984] 3 NSWLR 201, 203. The Allison test, formulated, was not, however, intended to be, or to provide, an exhaustive definition of what could constitute professional misconduct: Prothonotary v Costello (207). 24 In New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279, Spigelman CJ discussed the concept of professional misconduct, noting at [50]–[51]: It has not generally been useful or necessary to distinguish the terminology of 'professional misconduct' from other phrases such as a 'fit and proper person', 'good fame and character', 'unprofessional conduct', 'unsatisfactory professional conduct' etc. Statutory formulations differ from one jurisdiction to another. Some of the terminology, originally based on statute, has been adopted in cases decided under the inherent jurisdiction. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, it is not appropriate that the Court should indulge in the splitting of fine hairs on terminology. The words 'professional misconduct' are broad and general words. Their meaning may vary from one context to another. Their interpretation involves what is often referred to as an 'ambiguity', although I prefer to describe this kind of difficulty for an interpreter as one of 'inexplicitness' rather than 'ambiguity': see Repatriation Commission v Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia NSW Branch Inc (2000) 48 NSWLR 548 at 577 [116]. 25 Cummins concerned the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW). Section 127(1) of that Act provided that 'professional misconduct' included 'unsatisfactory conduct'. The latter expression was given a non-exhaustive meaning at s 127(2). The Court was not required to consider any issue of 'unsatisfactory professional conduct'. 26 Although, as Spigleman CJ notes, there may be some overlap in the terminology used, it also is the case that 'professional misconduct' is often seen to signify more serious misconduct than, for example, unprofessional conduct at common law: Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Caine [2010] WASAT 178 at [15]. This distinction can also be seen in certain other Australian jurisdictions, where 'professional misconduct' is defined as including 'unsatisfactory professional conduct' of a serious kind, among other things: see for example, s 403 of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) as considered in O'Halloran v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2013] WASCA 59 at [7]-[9]. 27 In any event, at common law, the categories of professional misconduct are not fixed: Bechara v Legal Services Commissioner (2010) 79 NSWLR 763; [2010] NSWCA 369 at 441 [44] per McClellan CJ. 28 There is a well-established expectation in common law that a barrister be truthful in their dealings not only with a client, but with the public at large, for reason of the privilege they hold as a legal practitioner: Re B [1982] 2 NSWLR 372 at 381, citing Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409 at 420. Dishonesty on the part of a lawyer strikes the very foundations of the administration of justice. It has a tendency to bring the legal profession into disrepute. It tarnishes the necessary confidence that the public and the Courts must have in relation to practising lawyers. 29 I consider the first category of the Registrar's allegations namely, dishonesty in the form of false representations by Mr Walsh to be of such grave impropriety so as to come within the more serious charge of professional misconduct. 30 It is firmly established at common law that a legal practitioner's duty to the Court is paramount to all others: Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; (1988) 165 CLR 543, 556 per Mason CJ, 594 per Dawson J; D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1 at [26] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ. Discourteous or insulting correspondence is also considered to be a breach of a practitioner's duties at common law: Weston v Central Criminal Courts Administrator [1977] QB 32. 31 I gratefully adopt Spigleman CJ's observation in Cummins that 'in this jurisdiction the Court should not indulge in the splitting of fine hairs on terminology'. As I mentioned the Court was there not asked to deal with conduct amounting to 'unsatisfactory professional conduct'. Here, I am required to consider what is meant, for the purposes of s 18A(1) of the LPA, by the expression 'unsatisfactory professional conduct'. There is no direct common law equivalent. I find that it means professional conduct which is unsatisfactory according to what would be accepted by legal practitioners of good repute standing and competency. It seems to me, in the context of s 18A of the LPA, that it is intended to describe conduct of a less serious kind than 'professional misconduct'. Nonetheless both expressions are to be broadly viewed and it would be unhelpful to attempt to be more prescriptive as to their meaning. 32 I regard the conduct pleaded in grounds 2, 3 and 4 of the Registrar's allegations as coming within the lesser charge of unsatisfactory professional conduct. Procedural history 33 Mr Walsh applied in 2016, unsuccessfully, to strike out the Registrar's application as vexatious and an abuse of power: Registrar, Supreme Court of Norfolk Island v Walsh [2016] NFSC 1. 34 The trial of these proceedings commenced before Besanko CJ on 10 April 2017. At that time, the parties made some short opening submissions and the Registrar, was called to give evidence. However, his Honour recused himself before the conclusion of cross-examination of the Registrar upon an application by counsel for Mr Walsh. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for further hearing to commence on 4 September 2017: Registrar, Supreme Court of Norfolk Island v Walsh (No 2) [2017] NFSC 2. 35 Mr Walsh applied unsuccessfully to adjourn the September 2017 trial dates: Registrar, Supreme Court of Norfolk Island v Walsh (No 3) [2017] NFSC 4. 36 Mr Walsh played a limited part in these proceedings. He did not attend and was not represented at the hearing of his adjournment application, nor did he attend the resumption of the trial before me, despite the Court's refusal to adjourn the trial. He was not represented at the trial. However, I did have the benefit of his defence, an affidavit sworn by him on 27 October 2016, and written opening submissions handed up during the trial in April 2017, and subsequently filed on 20 May 2017. 37 At the trial, the Registrar read and served the following affidavits: (a) The Registrar, Mr Bataille, affirmed on 6 October 2015; (b) Ms Kellie Le Vien, a solicitor employed by the Registrar's solicitors at the relevant time, affirmed 28 September 2016; (c) Mr Geoffrey James Atkinson, a Norfolk Island-based solicitor, sworn on 27 September 2016; (d) Mr John Terence Brown, a Norfolk Island-based solicitor, sworn on 9 September 2016; (e) Mr Craig Maurice Anderson, a Norfolk Island-based solicitor, affirmed on 2 September 2016; and (f) Dr Ping-Fat Sze, a Hong Kong-based solicitor, affirmed on 26 September 2016. 38 Messrs Atkinson, Brown and Anderson and Dr Sze each gave additional oral testimony. 39 Mr Walsh filed and served an affidavit sworn on 27 October 2016, which was responsive to each of the affidavits relied upon by the Registrar. Whilst not obliged to do so, counsel for the Registrar tendered, albeit not as part of his case, Mr Walsh's affidavit. Counsel for the Registrar did so, as a model litigant, in order that the Court would, despite Mr Walsh's failure to appear at the trial, have the fullest material possible. Factual findings 40 My findings of fact have been made for the reasons which follow. The findings concern the particular allegations set out under [4] above as particularised. 41 I deal with each in turn. Representations as to requirements for practice 42 The chain of events leading to these allegations commenced in or about February 1996 when Dr Ping-Fat Sze and his wife married in Norfolk Island. He was introduced to Mr Walsh and asked him what were the requirements for practising as a legal practitioner on Norfolk Island. According to Dr Sze, Mr Walsh told him and thereby represented that, in order to be granted a Norfolk Island Practising Certificate, and be admitted to practice as a legal practitioner he would require to become a member of the NIBA. He said Mr Walsh told him he was the president of the NIBA. Dr Sze thereafter took up a law professorship at the University of Macao and in he ensuing years met Mr Walsh several times in Melbourne and discussed matters relating to legal practice on Norfolk Island. 43 In 2007, Dr Sze returned to Hong Kong and felt that his admission to legal practice on Norfolk Island would assist his plans to run his private practice as a trust and estate practitioner. Dr Sze said that in June 2007, acting in reliance on the representation referred to above, he paid to Mr Walsh AUD 200 in return for a certificate of 'life membership' of the NIBA. Mr Walsh denies these allegations. 44 As I later explain, the NIBA was not a formal or official representative body for lawyers on Nofolk Island. At no time was membership of the NIBA a requirement for admission to practice and obtaining a practicing certificate in Norfolk Island. 45 At trial, Dr Sze confirmed the truthfulness and correctness of his affidavit evidence and also gave further detailed evidence about, among other things, the purpose and circumstances of his visit to the Court and its Registry on 13 February 1996. In particular, he stated that he did not seek or obtain any information from the Court or the Registry at that or any other time about requirements to enable him to practise as a lawyer in Norfolk Island. He stated that, given the information provided to him by Mr Walsh on this question, he did not need to do so. 46 Dr Sze said that sometime prior to 2012 he became aware that the NIBA was not a recognised professional body and that membership was not a requirement for obtaining a Practising Certificate in Norfolk Island. He then wrote to Mr Walsh and demanded the return of the AUD 200. He also returned the certificate to Mr Walsh. Mr Walsh did not reply to this demand or to a further demand by email from Dr Sze dated 2 April 2014. Dr Sze then lodged his written complaint dated 12 March 2015 to the Registrar. 47 Dr Sze, at the time of the trial, was semi-retired. He had worked as a law lecturer or practitioner in a number of jurisdictions including Australia, Hong Kong, Macao and Papua New Guinea. He was admitted as a legal practitioner in New South Wales in 1994. He also, as I mentioned, had held a Professorship of Law at Macao University. 48 The AUD 200 for 'life membership' of the so called NIBA was paid at the direction of Dr Sze by HSBC Bank transfer to 'Doctors Commons Trust Account' Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Norfolk Island on 11 June 2007. 49 After seeking and obtaining further information from Dr Sze, the Registrar wrote to Mr Walsh on 22 July 2015, informing him of the complaint and requiring his response to various matters relating to the complaint within 14 days. The letter sought a response within 14 days to the following questions: 1. Is the body known as "Norfolk Island Bar Association" registered or incorporated under any law applicable to Norfolk Island or Australia? If so, please provide legible copies of the proper certificate of registration or incorporation with your response. 2. Under what provision of the Legal Profession Act 1993 (NI) or any regulation thereunder is an applicant seeking or desiring to seek registration as a legal practitioner in Norfolk Island required or compelled to apply for and hold membership with any group known as "Norfolk Island Bar Association"? 3. Have you made any such representation at any time to any persons anywhere whether or not such person has paid you any money as a result? If so, please provide details of each occasion or circumstances where the representation was made either expressly or impliedly by you? 4. On what basis have you neglected or refused to respond to any written demand by the complainant for repayment or refund of the amount of $200 apparently paid by him to you? Are you willing to refund the amount of $200 in full to the complainant now and if not, on what basis in law do you claim an entitlement to retention of the money? 5. On what basis do you operate a bank account entitled "Doctor's Commons Trust account" with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Account Number 10004014) when I can find no record of such trust account being registered and audited under Part 5, sections 22 to 32 of the Act and under the Legal Profession (Audit) Regulations 2008 (NI)? 6. Is such trust account registered for purposes of the Legal Aid Act 1995 (NI)? 7. What services or benefits or both (if any) have you or the NIBA provided to the complainant? Please provide full details. 8. Have you received any other complaints regarding the representation and/or demands of repayment of membership fees paid in regard to the body known as the NIBA? If so, please provide full details and legible copies of all such complaints? 9. Have you been the subject of any other professional conduct complaint anywhere or any adverse comment by any court or tribunal anywhere at any time? If so, please provide details and legible copies of any relevant documents/judgements/findings. 50 Mr Walsh did not respond substantively within 14 days. He did, I infer, cause a letter to be sent to the Registrar, dated 31 July 2015 by a Ms Jodie Anderson on Norfolk Island Bar Association letterhead. The letterhead disclosed Mr Walsh as "President" being a reference, I infer, to being President of the so called NIBA. It includes in the letterhead an email address: barassociation@norfolkisland.edu.nf. The address is noted as 'Doctors Commons, Watermill Valley, Norfolk Island, South Pacific'. This was Mr Walsh's practice address. 51 Ms Anderson's letter included the following: [A]although the letter was addressed to Dr Walsh, we trust that you will understand that it would be inappropriate for Dr Walsh to respond since he was appointed to judicial office in February and assumed the position of Chief Justice of the International Tribunal for Natural Justice in London. It then stated that the Secretary of the NIBA, Ms Shae Woodward was overseas but would respond to the Registrar's letter in approximately 7-10 days. She did not do so. I will revisit the content of this letter, later in these reasons, referable to another ground. 52 Mr Walsh finally responded to the Registrar by letter on NIBA letterhead dated 17 August 2015. Relevantly, the letter states: First, Mr Sze neglects to mention that he had already made an identical complaint to the Victorian Bar, which was dismissed. Second, Mr Sze neglects to mention that he came to Norfolk Island with the express intention to establishing a Solicitor legal practice, in conjunction with his Hong Kong legal practice. As Dr Walsh only practised as a Barrister-at-Law, he introduced Mr Sze to various Solicitors on the Island (including Mr John Brown and Mr Geoff Atkinson), introduced him to the Court and brought him to the Supreme Court Registry, where it is understood that he received advices regarding legal practice on Norfolk Island. Third, Mr Sze neglects to mention that he asked if he, as an overseas practitioner, could join the Association. It was his request, not ours, and he was not, at any time, told that it was a requirement to join the Association. In fact, a number of Solicitors practicing on and off the Island are not members. He was advised that the yearly membership was $20.00, but elected to pay 10 years in advance for "life membership" and a life membership certificate was prepared for him by Mr Geoff Atkinson. Fourth, Mr Sze neglects to mention that since he became a member in 2007, he has added in his public "Who's Who" in Hong Kong, as enclosed, as a qualification "life membership of the Norfolk Island Bar Association". He is still claiming this membership and now has created the ludicrous situation of requesting a refund of his $200 fee. Given that Mr Sze has had the benefit of his membership for 8 years, we are prepared to remit the sum of $40 for the last 2 years, provided that Mr Sze removes all reference to the Association from his promotional material in Hong Kong and elsewhere. The Association has 20 members and includes non-resident members who practice from time to time on Norfolk Island and includes past Administrators such as Mr Owen Walsh and Mr Grant Tambling, as well as the then Chief Magistrate Mr Ron Cahill. The Association is a proprietary professional association, which was formed in July 1994. It received formal international recognition in 1995. It is recognised by, and a member of, the International Bar Association in London, European Association of Lawyers, and the South Pacific Lawyers Association. It was a founding member of the Human Rights Institute. It is recognised by the Law Council of Australia, which, like the aforementioned professional bodies, and other law associations throughout the world, regards Norfolk Island as a distinct and separate jurisdiction in country or national terms. The Law Council of Australia has, from time to time, sought reports from the Association. You mention the Legal Profession Act of Norfolk Island, which Act did not come into force until 2008, some 14 years after the Association was formed. The Association is not a company or a firm or a business. It has the same legal status as other similar associations such as the Australian Bar Association. It has no connection with the so-called Norfolk Island Law Society, which appears to be a local business. You mention Doctors Commons', which is a place, not a company or a business or a firm. The bank account to which you refer is operated by the Trustee of the Association, namely United Pacific Corporation Pty Ltd, which was formed in 1994, and which is audited each year and has been since 1994. The Association does not trade as a business, nor receive fees for legal work. The Association receives no legal aid funding and has never asked for any. Our pro bono work is provided without any cost to the public purse. 53 In his written evidence Mr Walsh denied that he ever informed Dr Sze that he needed to join the NIBA as a requisite condition to his obtaining a Norfolk Island practising certificate. Mr Walsh admitted that Dr Sze did pay AUD 200 to the NIBA but said that this was for a life membership and that he was provided with a Life Members Certificate of the NIBA. It was tendered in evidence. It is dated 1 January 2008 and is signed by Mr Walsh as President. According to Mr Walsh the AUD 200 was paid direct to the Trust Account of the Trustee for the NIBA, United Pacific Corporation Pty Ltd and these monies were used to pay the yearly affiliation fee to the IBA in London. 54 In fact, as I earlier mentioned the HSBC Bank transfer advice dated 11 June 2007 discloses the beneficiary as 'DOCTOR COMMONS TRUST ACCOUNT – Account Number 10004014' at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Norfolk Island. As appears from Mr Walsh's letter of 17 August 2015 to the Registrar on NIBA letterhead, its address is shown as 'Doctor's Commons Watermill Valley, Norfolk Island, South Pacific'. I find that the AUD 200 was paid to an account controlled by Mr Walsh for his own benefit. 55 He said that he could not have made the alleged representation to Dr Sze in 1996 because at that time and until 2008, according to him, there were no practising certificates issued in Norfolk Island as at that time any practitioner admitted to practices in Australia or New Zealand was thereby entitled to practice law on Norfolk Island. Even assuming this to be correct, it does not follow that Mr Walsh did not make the alleged representation. 56 I find that the conflict between the evidence of Dr Sze and Mr Walsh should be resolved in favour of Dr Sze's account. I found Dr Sze to be an impressive witness. There was no hint of malice or overstatement in his evidence. Most importantly, Dr Sze's account is, in broad terms, consistent with other evidence set out later in these reasons and which I have accepted that tends to show that, since 1994, Mr Walsh has misrepresented the nature, status and function of the NIBA and, in particular, falsely claimed that the NIBA had some formal or official role as a representative body for lawyers in Norfolk Island. I do not accept Mr Walsh's evidence wherever it conflicts with that of Dr Sze. Further, although Mr Walsh in his letter of 17 August 2015 states that the certificate of 'life membership' given to Dr Sze was prepared by Mr Atkinson, I accept Mr Atkinson's evidence that he prepared a template for NIBA 'life membership' certificates but did not prepare or issue Dr Sze's particular certificate. 57 There was no explanation either from Mr Atkinson or Mr Walsh as to why such a template was prepared. That it was, is not necessarily inconsistent with the NIBA being a Luncheon Club as I have found below that it was. No one else gave evidence of knowing about or having had such a certificate. 58 I find that Mr Walsh made the representation as alleged by Dr Sze, and which induced Dr Sze to pay to Mr Walsh AUD 200. The representation was to the effect that membership of the NIBA was a condition of obtaining registration as a legal practitioner under the LPA in Norfolk Island. I find that Mr Walsh did so knowing that the representation was false. He then knew that there was no requirement for anyone seeking to practice as a lawyer in Norfolk Island that they be a member of the so called NIBA. Mr Walsh's conduct, in this respect, as well as concerns the other grounds involving dishonest and false representations, may be aptly described as 'grave impropriety affecting his professional character' (Kennedy) and would not be within the realm of 'a generally accepted standard of common decency and common fairness': Clyne v NSW Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186. These are egregious examples of professional misconduct, by virtue of their seriousness. He thereby breached his duty as a legal practitioner to act with integrity and candour, and is thus guilty of professional misconduct. Representations concerning NIBA 59 Each of Messrs Atkinson, Brown and Anderson said that, at some time in or after 1996, the name 'Norfolk Island Bar Association' was given to a social lunch and drinks club attended mostly, but not exclusively, by lawyers on Norfolk Island. The attendees included Mr Walsh. Messrs Atkinson and Anderson paid a cash contribution to Mr Walsh for 'life membership' of the club. However, none of Messrs Atkinson, Brown and Anderson regarded that club as anything other than a social group. To their knowledge, the NIBA did not have any appointed officeholders or formal meetings. They certainly did not regard the club as a representative body for lawyers practising on Norfolk Island. None of them was ever aware of any representative body for lawyers on Norfolk Island known as the "Norfolk Island Bar Association". 60 Mr Atkinson confirmed and I accept, that the AUD 200 he said he had given Mr Walsh for life membership of the NIBA was a one-off payment in cash. Mr Walsh had suggested in his own evidence that the transfer of money occurred in some other way than by payment of cash. Mr Atkinson then stated that the NIBA was: …only ever a drinking club. It was a Friday luncheon group – mostly lawyers, but there could sometimes be other persons present at these Friday lunches…The situation was that in those days, Mr Walsh was present at those lunches, and it was basically a tongue-in-cheek type joke that this was the Bar Association – 'bar' meaning drinking, rather than legal. The AUD 200 paid which was a one off payment was, by Mr Atkinson's understanding, to run the luncheon events, and, in particular, to pay for alcohol. 61 Mr Brown denied, that the NIBA ever transacted any business that one might expect a bar association to transact. Instead, he remembered the NIBA as only a 'pleasant lunch club', recalling only one occasion on which Mr Walsh, at one lunch, took a page from his bag and said that he was presenting financial statements for NIBA. Mr Brown agreed with the description by Mr Atkinson that the reference to the NIBA as a 'bar association' was more of a reference to a drinking bar than a legal bar. He said that probably half of the people coming along to the NIBA lunches were not lawyers 62 Mr Anderson in his oral evidence recalled having to pay an amount for reasons, including the registration of the NIBA, as a business name. As the Registrar's affidavit disclosed, no body or group by that name was ever registered in Norfolk Island. Mr Anderson paid AUD 100 to Mr Walsh for membership of the luncheon club and that money, he understood was to be used for the registration of the association. He did not recall discussing matters that a professional association would be expected to discuss, recalling indeed that '[o]ne of the rules of the association was that no business should really be discussed. It was intended at all times to be a social body and social gathering.' He also recalled there being several non-lawyers who were members of the NIBA, and named several of them in oral evidence. 63 According to Mr Walsh, the NIBA was established on 4 July 1994, soon after he began living on Norfolk Island. He deposed to having had twenty six members including himself. These were said by him to include: (1) Mr Owen Walsh, Administrator of Norfolk Island (2) Ms Sonya Kilkenny, Deputy Crown Counsel (3) Mr Ron Cahill, Chief Magistrate (4) Ms Mary Cahill, New South Wales Solicitor (5) Mr Michael Moorehead, Victorian Solicitor (6) Mr Grant Tambling, Administrator of Norfolk Island 64 Orders were made on 19 August 2016 for the filing by the parties of affidavits of the witnesses they proposed to call as part of their case. No statements or affidavits were filed by Mr Walsh to corroborate his own assertions as to membership made in his affidavit. 65 Mr Brown gave evidence that Mr Tambling: …was a former senator, former member of the House of Representatives and a former Territory member from the Northern Territory. I know him well, and to the best of my knowledge, he has never had a legal qualification. 66 Mr Brown also gave evidence that, as far as he was aware Mr Prechelt did not have any legal qualifications either. 67 Mr Walsh deposed in his affidavit as follows: [9] Some members paid fees of $20 per year, whilst others paid ten years membership in advance for life membership, and many others had their fees waived. Any and all fees received were used to pay yearly affiliation fees to the IBA in London. Fees were paid into or transferred to the trustee of the NIBA, United Pacific Corporation, which each year has been audited on Norfolk Island since 1994. [10] Sonya Kilkenny, sponsored by the NIBA, was given an international scholarship with the IBA to enable her to attend the IBA conference in Auckland in 2004, including airfares, accommodation, conference fees, and other benefits. After leaving Norfolk Island, Sonya was elected to the Victorian parliament. 68 Mr Walsh acknowledged that there was a Friday lunch club but said it had never been associated or affiliated with the NIBA. He added at [11]-[16]: [11] What has been referred to as the Friday lunch club was established by me on Friday 22 August 2003. It consisted of founding members, being myself, John Brown, Ric Robinson, Mike Hehir, Craig Anderson, John Worthy, Ross Sampson and Greg Prechelt. The lunch club was not, and never has been, associated or affiliated with the NIBA. [12] There had been informal Friday lunch meetings since I came to Norfolk Island in 1994. At this time there was a ladies lunch group called the Lunch Bunch, which also met together on Fridays. A number of male residents used to meet at the same time, but at a difference location. Over time, these meetings, which were exclusively male only, became a regular routine, and it was suggested that we should formalise the meetings and set up a system of knowing who would be coming, so we could then advise the restaurant for catering purposes. Given that the lunch group was exclusively male only, it could not have been a meeting of the NIBA, which had both male and female members. [13] The members gave the lunch club a number of different names, as they could not agree on one particular name. Apart from the colloquial "Friday Lunch Club", it was called the "Norfolk Lunch Club", the "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", the "Royal Norfolk Island Yacht Squadrant", the "Beef, Steak and Burgundy Club", as well as the "Royal Norfolk Club for Gentlemen, Nobles and Other Persons of Virtuous and Well-deserving Disposition". [14] It continued regular casual meetings, attended by a number of Norfolk Island residents, as well as visitors and by the Administrator at the time and other persons. [15] It was placed in abeyance in December 2014. The club was subsequently dissolved. [16] At the Friday lunches, members generally paid for their own meals and drinks, save for when meals were at the Colonial Hotel ("the Hotel"). John Brown did not have to pay for his meal at the Hotel as he owned the Hotel. There was no other collection of money. When the venue changed to Mariahs Hotel, the same pattern continued of individuals paying money to cover their own lunch. 69 Mr Walsh asserted, without more, that the NIBA was '….fully recognised and met with approval by the then Norfolk Island government, the Supreme Court, and the legal profession'. He said it was also 'recognised by the Law Council of Australia'. I do not accept this bald assertion. 70 A copy of a document entitled 'Norfolk Island Bar Association – Constitution and Charter' is annexed to Mr Walsh's affidavit. The single-page document bears the date of 4 July 1994. That document is not, however, signed by anyone. Nor has Mr Walsh, who purports to have been the President of the NIBA at all times since 1994, adduced evidence of any resolution adopting the purported document as the Constitution of the NIBA. 71 Mr Walsh stated that, among others, Messrs Atkinson, Brown and Anderson were members of the NIBA at various times. However, each of them gave evidence that, prior to this proceeding, none of them had ever seen or heard of any constitution for the NIBA. That lack of awareness of the purported Constitution document suggests that it was prepared by Mr Walsh on his own and without others' knowledge or assent. 72 In his submission, Mr Walsh states that the NIBA 'was an informal gathering of barristers, solicitors, members of the judiciary and persons interested in the law'. He further noted that the NIBA had a secretary and did not keep minutes of meetings, and that its email address was an educational email address, not a legal address. 73 He does, however, claim that the NIBA existed as a representative body for lawyers separate to and independent from the Friday lunch club. I do not accept this. Save for Mr Walsh every other 'member' of the NIBA who gave evidence stated that it was not a representative body for lawyers. Rather, as Messrs Atkinson, Brown and Anderson stated the NIBA was merely a lunch and drinks club. The almost complete lack of books and records of the NIBA tends to confirm that description. 74 If the NIBA ever had any status other than that of a social lunch and drinks club, it was a status unilaterally conferred on it by Mr Walsh without the assent of any of those who attended the actual lunch occasions. In this regard, Mr Walsh did represent, in his dealings with others, that the NIBA was a representative body for lawyers on Norfolk Island. Those representations were false. Those representations were as follows. 75 First, Mr Walsh applied, in or around 1994, for the NIBA to become a member of the International Bar Association (IBA). 76 Annexed to Mr Walsh's affidavit was a certificate issued by the IBA certifying that the NIBA was admitted as a full member organisation on 10 June 1995. As counsel for the Registrar pointed out, the rules for the IBA currently require something more than lesser forms of membership for an organisation. These rules, extracted from the IBA Constitution, can be found on its website. At a base level, the rules require that: 3.5 Any organisation wishing to apply for admission as a Member Organisation shall make application to the Association in writing accompanied by: 3.5.1 A copy of its Constitution or other rules and a summary of the background, history and objectives of the organisation; 3.5.2 the names, addresses, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail addresses (if any) of its president, senior officer and other officers; 3.5.3 a certificate signed by an officer of the applicant stating the number of the applicant's own members; and 3.5.4 payment of the annual dues for the then current year. 77 In his affidavit, Mr Walsh simply refers to the NIBA becoming a member without really going into the mechanics of how that occurred. Searches conducted online by Ms Le Vien, and attached to her affidavit, suggest that membership of the IBA has continued since 1990 or 1995 to around 2016 (with the IBA website listing the NIBA as a member organisation as at 27 September 2016). 78 I infer that, in order to apply successfully for that full membership, Mr Walsh must have made statements and submitted documents to the IBA about the NIBA's status as a representative body for lawyers on Norfolk Island. I infer that, having regard to the true nature of the NIBA in 1994 or 1995, representations made in those statements and documents were false. I also infer that, in subsequently renewing each year the NIBA's annual membership of the IBA, Mr Walsh continued to misrepresent the true nature, status and functions of the NIBA. 79 Second, Mr Walsh also applied from time to time on behalf of the NIBA for membership of other professional associations, such as the South Pacific Lawyers Association, and, in so doing he misrepresented the true nature, status and functions of the NIBA. The NIBA is listed on this Association's website and lists "Dr John Walsh of Brannagh" as the President of the NIBA. 80 Third, Mr Walsh made the representations to Dr Sze in and after 1996 to which I have referred. The representations made to Dr Sze implied that the NIBA was a formal or official representative body with authority over lawyers on Norfolk Island, when, as I have found, it was not. 81 Fourth, Mr Walsh has otherwise represented to the general public in his professional correspondence in setting out his professional experience and qualifications, that he is the 'President of the Norfolk Island Bar Association' and has held that position since 1994. For example, Mr Walsh's profile on the Victoria Bar Website indicates that he is the 'President of the Norfolk Island Bar Association'. That representation, insofar as it might have suggested that Mr Walsh was an officeholder of a representative body for lawyers on Norfolk Island, was false. Mr Walsh has also purported to act on behalf of the NIBA and its members by signing documents on behalf of the NIBA. He never had any proper basis or authority to do so. 82 I find that Mr Walsh made each of these representations variously, and in each case carrying the implication that the NIBA was a representative body for lawyers practising on Norfolk Island, knowing that the representations with their associated implication were in each case false. He thereby breached his duty as a legal practitioner to act with integrity and to not make false representations. This constituted professional misconduct. Alleged failure to comply with duty to know and understand law 83 It is alleged that Mr Walsh, in making the representations to Dr Sze which are the subject of [42]-[58] above failed in his duty to know and understand the law concerning the requirements for admission or registration as a legal practitioner in Norfolk Island. 84 I have already found that when Mr Walsh made these representations they were, to his knowledge, false. 85 Accordingly, the representations were made not because Mr Walsh failed to know and understand the law. He well knew the law in this respect although he falsely misrepresented the position. 86 It follows that this allegation is not made out. Representations as to holding judicial office 87 I also find that Mr Walsh has made, or authorised the making of, a false or misleading representation to the Registrar that, by reason of his position as 'Chief Justice' of the 'International Tribunal for Natural Justice (ITNJ)', he had been 'appointed to judicial office'. Mr Walsh also made the same false representation to the general public, on the website of the ITNJ, including in 'hearing summaries' made available on that website, and on his profile page on the Victorian Bar website, extracted copies of which were attached to the affidavits of Ms Le Vien and Mr Bataille. 88 I earlier mentioned that in response to the Registrar's letter about Dr Sze's complaint, the Registrar received a letter from Ms Jodie Anderson on behalf of Mr Walsh, dated 31 July 2015. The letter bore a letterhead for the "Norfolk Island Bar Association" and the letterhead referred to, among other things, Mr Walsh as the President. I set out again, for case of reference, part of that letter: It is noted that although the letter [from the Registrar dated 22 July 2015] was addressed to Dr Walsh, we trust that you will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for Dr Walsh to respond since he was appointed to judicial office in February and assumed the position of Chief Justice of the International Tribunal for Natural Justice in London. I advise that the Secretary, Ms Shae Woodward, is away overseas on annual leave at present. Accordingly, I advise that Ms Woodward will respond to your above letter upon her return (in approximately 7-10 days). (emphasis added) 89 Ms Le Vien's written evidence deals at some length with the Tribunal. As at September 19, 2016 it had a website at www.itnj.org which disclosed on its home page the heading "Letter Patent – Proclaiming the Establishment of the International Tribunal for Natural Justice". Under the heading Tribunal Judges is found only "Sir John Walsh of Brannagh" who is described as "the first Chief Justice of the International Tribunal for Natural Justice". 90 On the page "Open Cases' two were listed: Unified Common Law Grand Jury of Southern Africa v Constitutional Court of South Africa ("the UZA Case"), and National Child Protection Alliance v Commonwealth of Australia ("the NCPA Case"). In relation to the NCPA Case, the page stated that the applicant was "seeking a declaration that the Australian Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and its implementation via the Family Court, the judiciary, the legal system and law enforcement are in direct breach of the United National Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)". The Respondent in the proceeding was identified as the Commonwealth of Australia. 91 The Commonwealth of Australia declined to participate as it did not recognise the Tribunal. 92 A press release was also disclosed on the website, concerning the 'NCPA' case. It stated, amongst other things that this was the Tribunal's first trial and that it was to take place at Monash University Law Chambers Seminar Room 3 at 555 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. It also contained the following: ABOUT THE ITNJ: Based in London, England, the ITNJ is an international court with an international remit to determine matters on a worldwide level. In this case it is sitting in Melbourne, Australia to take evidence available to and relevant to the parties and issue arising. The ITNJ is the world's first people-powered tribunal that operates independently of governments and corporations, and is therefore willing to issue rulings against those organizations based on Natural Law and Natural Justice, where agents of governments and/or corporations have caused harm or loss to living men and women, and in this case, children. ABOUT THIS TRIAL: The National Child Protection Alliance [NCPA] is seeking a declaration that the Australian Family Law Act and its implementation via the Family Courts, the Judiciary, the legal system, and law enforcement are in direct breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) Articles 9 and 24. The NCPA recommends changes accordingly towards justice and fairness and recognition of the rights of children in Australia whilst addressing the issue of domestic violence, including child protection. 93 I find that the representation to the Registrar of this Court by Mr Walsh as to his appointment to judicial office was false. The Tribunal is not a judicial body. Mr Walsh did not assert or depose to the contrary. Mr Walsh, in making such a representation, breached his duty as a legal practitioner to act with integrity and candour toward and not to mislead this Court. I find that he did so knowing the representation was false which again is a matter of dishonesty and serious enough to be professional misconduct. 94 Mr Walsh has represented to the public generally, in setting out his professional experience and qualifications, that he has been the 'Chief Justice' of the 'International Tribunal for Natural Justice' since 2015. That representation suggests that Mr Walsh is the holder of judicial office and is false. Representations as to Knighthood 95 I further find that Mr Walsh has made false or misleading representations to the Registrar that he has an entitlement to recognition as a Knight under the Australian or Imperial honours system and has an entitlement to use the honorific "Sir" in his name. 96 Mr Walsh has also made the same representation to the general public. 97 On 6 August 2015, Mr Walsh sought to lodge an application for registration as a legal practitioner of the Supreme Court using the name 'Sir John Walsh of Brannagh'. The Registrar indicated to the Deputy Registrar who was serving Mr Walsh in relation to his application that, in the absence of proper evidence showing the grant or award of a Knighthood under the Australian Honours System, he would not permit the renewal of Mr Walsh's registration with the pre-nominal 'Sir'. I infer that this advice was conveyed to Mr Walsh by the Deputy Registrar. Mr Walsh provided no such evidence and his registration renewal certificate dated 6 August 2015 disclosed his name as 'John Walsh of Brannagh'. 98 I infer that if there had been such evidence available to Mr Walsh he would have provided it to the Deputy Registrar. 99 Mr Walsh deposed that, in fact, the Deputy Registrar, Ms Evans, had suggested to him that he should use his title as at least one other practitioner did so. I do not accept this. It flies in the face of the clear evidence of the Registrar and the fact that Mr Walsh's registration proceeded on the basis of his name as 'John Walsh of Brannagh'. 100 Mr Walsh does not deny that he has referred to himself as 'Sir John Walsh of Brannagh'. Instead, he apparently asserts an entitlement to refer to himself in those terms. Before me on 29 July 2016, at the summary judgment hearing, Mr Walsh had asserted from the Bar table that his honorific of 'Sir' was French in origin. No evidence as to this was ever tendered at that time or at the trial. 101 Aside from his specific representation to the Registrar at the time of renewal of his practising certificate in 2015, Mr Walsh has generally represented to the public, in setting out his professional experience and qualifications, that his proper title is 'Sir John Walsh of Brannagh', again on the ITNJ website and his profile page on the Victorian Bar website. 102 Insofar as such representations suggest that Mr Walsh has an entitlement to recognition as a Knight under the Australian or Imperial honours system, I find each of them to be false. 103 Mr Walsh thereby breached his duty to act with integrity and candour toward the Court and not to mislead the Court. I find that he did so knowingly and thus is guilty of professional misconduct. Failure to respond personally to complaint 104 On 22 July 2015, the Registrar wrote to Mr Walsh to confirm that Mr Walsh was required to respond personally within 14 days (5 August 2015) to the professional conduct complaint made against him in his capacity as a legal practitioner on Norfolk Island. He did not do so personally until his letter of 17 August 2015 being 12 days late. Before then, he authorised or caused to be sent a letter by Ms Jodie Anderson dated 31 July 2015, implying that Mr Walsh would not be responding due to his appointment to judicial office and that Ms Shae Woodward, the supposed Secretary of the NIBA would respond in approximately 7–10 days. 105 I find that, in causing Ms Anderson to reply to the Registrar's letter as I have described, Mr Walsh failed in his duty as a lawyer to respond, within a reasonable time, personally to the Registrar's letter. I find that the 14 days granted him to reply by the Registrar was a reasonable time period. This failure constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct. That he subsequently did respond personally by his letter dated 17 August 2015 does not expunge this breach. Statements about other practitioners 106 I further find that Mr Walsh made offensive, reckless, discourteous and inflammatory statements about the conduct of Messrs Atkinson, Brown and Anderson. In a letter to the Registrar dated 17 August 2015, Mr Walsh responded to the Registrar's letter about Dr Sze's complaint. In doing so, Mr Walsh asserted that Messrs Atkinson, Brown and Anderson, all of whom were also legal practitioners on Norfolk Island, had chosen 'to attack a nineteen year old female Norfolk Islander', being Ms Shae Woodward, and that they had 'threatened or harassed' her in some way and conspired to do so. 107 There is no indication on the evidence before me that any of them ever engaged in any attack on Ms Woodward. Nor is there any indication that Ms Woodward was ever threatened or harassed by any of them. In response to this, Mr Walsh simply asserts that he 'made the claims in good faith and in the public interest'. He does not give any details of this assertion. Nor is any reason for the assertion otherwise evident. Again, I am satisfied that Mr Walsh's conduct involved a breach of his professional obligations. 108 I find that the statement made by Mr Walsh breached his duty as a legal practitioner not to make false offensive statements to the Court concerning other legal practitioners. This constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct. Consideration of Briginshaw standard 109 The Registrar has made out the allegations against Mr Walsh clearly and without any developed or persuasive challenge from Mr Walsh. The allegations are well supported by oral and affidavit evidence and documents. Conclusion and orders 110 I have found that Mr Walsh engaged in the conduct alleged by the Registrar under grounds 1A, 1B, 1C, 3, 4 and 5 in the originating application. 111 I will make the declarations, which I have summarised below but which are set out in more detail in the orders page of this judgment. 112 First, that Mr Walsh is guilty of professional misconduct pursuant to s 18A(1) of the LPA in that he made false representations variously as to: (a) the requirements for obtaining registration as a legal practitioner in Norfolk Island; (b) concerning a purported Association known as the NIBA; (c) that he was a judicial officer, holding appointment as the Chief Justice of the ITNJ; and (d) that he was entitled to recognition as a Knight under the Australian or Imperial honours system. 113 Second, that Mr Walsh is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct pursuant to s 18A(1) of the LPA in that he: (1) failed to respond personally to the Registrar's request for information about a complaint concerning his professional conduct; and (2) made false, discourteous and offensive statements about other legal practitioners. 114 The matter will be relisted for further hearing on 5 February 2018 in Perth as to further orders, if any, consequent upon the declarations I have made. If necessary, the parties may appear by way of a video-link from the Federal Court in Melbourne. I will order that the Registrar file and serve a written outline of submissions together with a minute of proposed orders by 22 January 2018. Mr Walsh is to file and serve a written outline of submissions in reply by 29 January 2018. I will also hear the parties on the question of costs. I certify that the preceding one hundred and fourteen (114) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gilmour. Associate: Dated: 22 December 2017 ANNEXURE A Grounds of the Originating Application and Particulars FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DUTY TO ACT WITH INTEGRITY AND CANDOUR 1. FALSE OR RECKLESS REPRESENTATION/S (A) REPRESENTATION ONE – REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION AS LAWYER IN NORFOLK ISLAND (i) That John Walsh of Brannagh did contrary to and in breach of his duty to act with integrity and candour as a legal practitioner PARTICULARS (ii) John Walsh of Brannagh on a date or dates unknown prior to June 2007 did knowingly or recklessly falsely represented to Dr Ping-Fat Sze, another legal practitioner, (the complainant) (iii) that it was necessary for the complainant to pay to Mr Walsh of Brannagh (iv) an amount of money namely $ 200 Australian for purchase of membership of an unincorporated entity operated by Mr Walsh of Brannagh known as "Norfolk Island Bar Association" (v) as a precondition or purported requirement for any statutory registration of the complainant Dr Ping-Fat Sze in Norfolk Island as a legal practitioner under the Legal Profession Act 1993 when no such statutory precondition or requirement existed at all; (vi) where the complainant did in fact pay an amount of $ 200 to a Commonwealth bank account operated by John Walsh of Brannagh entitled "Doctors Commons Trust account" by electronic funds transfer or internet transfer on or about 11 June 2007 (HSBC Interbank transfer) in reliance upon and trusting in the integrity and candour of John Walsh of Brannagh as a fellow legal practitioner (vii) thereby bringing or potentially bringing the legal profession in Norfolk Island into disrepute (B) REPRESENTATION TWO – NORFOLK ISLAND BAR ASSOCIATION WAS AN OFFICIAL LEGAL PROFESSIONAL BODY OF WHICH MEMBERSHIP REQUIRED TO PRACTICE IN NORFOLK ISLAND John Walsh of Brannagh did contrary to and in breach of his duty not to make any false or misleading representation or statement as a legal practitioner or in trade or commerce make one or more false or misleading representations or statements as a legal practitioner or in trade or commerce to the complainant Dr Ping-Fat Sze PARTICULARS (viii) John Walsh of Brannagh did on a date or dates unknown prior to June 2007 falsely represented either expressly or by clear implication to the complainant Dr Ping-Fat Sze (ix) that the unincorporated entity known as 'Norfolk Island Bar Association" (x) was a proper statutory or incorporated official legal professional body, (xi) membership of which was required for purposes of an application for registration as a legal practitioner in Norfolk Island under the Legal Profession Act 1993 (xii) when such representation or statement was without any basis in fact or in law, (xiii) as Mr Walsh of Brannagh well knew or ought to have known (xiv) or about which he was reckless when making such representation or statement. (xv) On which representation or statement as to the law, the complainant relied to the complainant's detriment and loss. (xvi) The entity known as Norfolk Island Bar Association is not a statutory legal professional body nor recognised as such by the Legal Profession Act 1993 (Norfolk Island). (C) REPRESENTATION THREE – FALSE OR RECKLESS REPRESENTATION TO INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION THAT NORFOLK ISLAND BAR ASSOCIATION IS PROPER LEGAL PROFESSIONAL BODY FOR NORFOLK ISLAND LAWYERS John Walsh of Brannagh did contrary to and in breach of his duty not to make any false or misleading representation or statement as a legal practitioner or in trade or commerce make one or more false or misleading representations or statements as a legal practitioner or in trade or commerce to the International Bar Association (IBA) of 10 St Bride St, London EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom Phone:+44 20 7842 0090 PARTICULARS (xvii) John Walsh of Brannagh did on a date or dates unknown obtain registration and renew from time to time the registration of the unregistered entity known as the Norfolk Island Bar Association with the International Bar Association (IBA) in London for organisation membership of that international professional body. (xviii) John Walsh of Brannagh well knew or ought to have known at all material times that the application was being made for registration and renewal of registration of an entity which was not incorporated and/or which was not recognised in Norfolk Island under the Legal Profession Act 1993 as a legal professional regulatory or disciplinary body. (xix) John Walsh of Brannagh has knowingly or recklessly allowed or misled the International Bar Association and its other members to believe or perceive the entity known as Norfolk Island Bar Association (xx) as being a properly incorporated or lawfully established legal professional body having proper rules and democratic processes for elections of officers (xxi) when such was never a true or correct statement of the actual legal status of the said unincorporated entity. (xxii) John Walsh of Brannagh well knowing the false basis on which registration of the said entity Norfolk Island Bar Association with the International Bar Association was obtained (xxiii) Has used and promoted the entity's membership of the IBA for purposes of and to the benefit of his own personal practice as a lawyer and in competition to the business of other lawyers in Norfolk Island and elsewhere. (xxiv) Has used and promoted the entity's membership of the IBA to gain for himself opportunities for self-promotion and income / reward at international and multi-national and other conferences and speaking engagements in various locations around the world. 2. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DUTY TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THE LAW (A) FALSE OR RECKLESS REPRESENTATION OR STATEMENT AS TO THE LAW John Walsh of Brannagh did contrary to and in breach of his duty to properly know and understand the law as a legal practitioner make on a date or dates unknown prior to June 2007 make a statement or representation to the complainant as to the law regarding the Legal Profession Act 1993 (as it then was prior to its amendment in 2008) PARTICULARS (i) John Walsh of Brannagh did on a date or dates unknown prior to June 2007 knowingly or recklessly falsely represented the law regarding requirements for admission or registration as a Norfolk Island Legal Practitioner to Dr Ping-Fat Sze, another legal practitioner, (the complainant) and (ii) which statement was not an accurate or correct statement of the law insofar as the statement alleged the then law to be (iii) that it was necessary for the complainant to pay to Mr Walsh of Brannagh an amount of money namely $ 200 Australian for purchase of membership of an unincorporated entity operated by Mr Walsh of Brannagh known as "Norfolk Island Bar Association" as a precondition or purported requirement for statutory registration of the complainant in Norfolk Island as a legal practitioner under the Legal Profession Act 1993 (iv) when such precondition or requirement was not in truth or fact a correct statement or representation as to the law under the Legal Profession Act 1993 (Norfolk Island) as it was in 2007, and (v) John Walsh of Brannagh took no or no adequately prompt steps to alert the complainant to the true or accurate state of the law regarding the statutory requirements for registration as a legal practitioner in Norfolk Island as it was his duty to do. 3. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH HIS DUTY NOT TO MISLEAD OR TO ACT WITH INTEGRITY AND CANDOUR TOWARDS THE COURT (VII) FALSE, RECKLESS OR MISLEADING STATEMENT TO THE COURT REGARDING APPOINTMENT TO JUDICIAL OFFICE John Walsh of Brannagh did in breach of his duty to the court knowingly or recklessly represent himself or allow himself to be represented to the Court as having been appointed to formal judicial office when such was not in fact or law the true case. PARTICULARS (i) By letter on the unapproved letterhead of 'Norfolk Island Bar Association" dated 31 July 2015 to the Registrar of the Court written by or on behalf of John Walsh of Brannagh by Ms Jodie Anderson. (ii) The second paragraph in that letter stated as follows: "It is noted that although the letter was addressed to Dr Walsh, we trust that you will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for Dr Walsh to respond since he was appointed to judicial office in February and assumed the position of Chief Justice of the International Tribunal for Natural Justice in London" (iii) Searches undertaken by the Registrar of the Court as a consequence of that statement revealed various internet websites purporting to show John Walsh of Brannagh portrayed as or claiming to be appointed as the Chief Justice to a non-governmental unofficial body calling itself the 'International Tribunal for Natural Justice'. (iv) The United Nations Organisation does not appear to have ever established a body called the "International Tribunal for Natural Justice" (v) The European Union / European Community do not appear to have ever established a body called the "International Tribunal for Natural Justice". (vi) John Walsh of Brannagh well knew or ought to have known or was reckless in regard to the publication or permitting the publication of a statement to the Court and/or its Registrar purporting to state or imply that John Walsh of Brannagh had been the subject of a proper formal official appointment to judicial office when such was not in fact or law the truth. (vii) The third and final paragraph of that letter then also purported to suggest or imply that John Walsh of Brannagh in breach of his duty to respond personally to any inquiry by the Court regarding his professional conduct would not be responding personally. (viii) Alternatively, the third paragraph purported to suggest or imply that an inquiry by the Court as to the professional conduct of John Walsh of Brannagh would be responded to only by the unincorporated entity known as Norfolk Island Bar Association rather than by the legal practitioner himself contrary to his duty to the court. (ix) The third and final paragraph of the said letter states: "I advise that the Secretary, Ms Shae Woodward, is away overseas on annual leave at present. Accordingly, I advise that Ms Woodward will respond to your above letter upon her return (in approximately 7-10 days). Yours faithfully, Jodie Anderson" (x) That if such letter was written without the express instruction and/or authority of John Walsh of Brannagh, then John Walsh of Brannagh failed in his duty to properly supervise and monitor the activities of his employees or staff. (VIII) FALSE, RECKLESS OR MISLEADING STATEMENT OT THE COURT REGARDING ENTITLEMENT TO RECOGNITION AS A KNIGHT UNDER THE IMPERIAL OR AUSTRALIAN HONOURS SYSTEM John Walsh of Brannagh did in 2015 in breach of his duty not to mislead or to act with integrity and candour towards the court falsely or recklessly apply to the court for renewal of his annual practising certificate for 2015-2016 in the name of and did seek to have his annual practising certificate endorsed with the name "Sir John Walsh of Brannagh" when he well knew or ought to have known he was not entitled to any such title under the Australian or Imperial Honours system. PARTICULARS (a) John Walsh of Brannagh did during 2015 apply in writing to the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island for renewal of his annual practising certificate for Norfolk Island (b) John Walsh of Brannagh did make such application in the name of and did in such application seek the addition to the name on his practising certificate of the pre-nominal "SIR" so that the practising certificate might display the legal practitioner's name as "Sir John Walsh of Brannagh" (c) John Walsh of Brannagh failed or refused to provide any cogent evidence in writing of the legal practitioner being the recipient or holder of an award of knighthood under the Australian or Imperial British Honours system (d) John Walsh of Brannagh failed to move promptly or at all to correct the application for renewal form when challenged by the Registrar and/or the Deputy Registrar of the Court to produce such evidence in writing. (e) The annual practising certificate was issued only in the name of "John Walsh of Brannagh" 4. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH HIS DUTY TO REPOND PERSONALLY TO COURT INQUIRY REGARDING HIS PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT John Walsh of Brannagh did on or about 31 July 2015 fail to comply with his duty as a legal practitioner in Norfolk Island to respond personally to an inquiry in writing by the Court or the Registrar thereof in regard to his professional conduct. (i) The third and final paragraph of a letter dated 31 July 2015 under purported letterhead of 'Norfolk Island Bar Association' signed by a Ms Jodie Anderson purported to suggest or imply that John Walsh of Brannagh in breach of his duty to respond personally to any inquiry by the Court regarding his professional conduct would not be responding personally. (ii) Alternatively, the third paragraph purported to suggest or imply that an inquiry by the Court as to the professional conduct of John Walsh of Brannagh would be responded to only by the unincorporated entity known as Norfolk Island Bar Association or only by one of John Walsh of Brannagh's employees or associates rather than by the legal practitioner himself contrary to his duty to the court to respond personally. (iii) The third and final paragraph of the said letter states: "I advise that the Secretary, Ms Shae Woodward, is away overseas on annual leave at present. Accordingly, I advise that Ms Woodward will respond to your above letter upon her return (in approximately 7-10 days). Yours faithfully, Jodie Anderson" (iv) That if such letter was written without the express instruction and/or authority of John Walsh of Brannagh, then John Walsh of Brannagh failed in his duty to properly supervise and monitor the activities of his employees or staff. 5. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH HIS DUTY NOT TO MAKE FALSE OR RECKLESS OR DISCOURTEOUS OR OFFENSIVE OR PROVOCATIVE OR INFLAMMATORY STATEMENTS TO THE COURT OR REGARDING OTHER LEGAL PRACTITIONERS John Walsh of Brannagh did on or about 17 August 2015 by letter in writing under the letterhead of the unincorporated entity 'Norfolk Island Bar Association' knowingly or recklessly make statements and comments of an offensive or provocative or discourteous or inflammatory nature to the Court or regarding other legal practitioners in Norfolk Island without any supporting evidence or documents being provided in support thereof. PARTICULARS (l) On 17 August 2015, John Walsh of Brannagh sent or caused to be sent a letter in writing to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island. (ii) Such letter was under the letterhead of the unincorporated entity known as "Norfolk Island Bar Association' (iii) No business name for such entity was at the time registered in Norfolk Island under the Business Names Act 1976 (Norfolk Island) (iv) The contents of such letter were (while purporting to be a personal response of the legal practitioner) in a tone which was offensive, discourteous and inflammatory in nature towards the Court and/or the Registrar thereof. (v) The contents of such letter included serious allegations of improper motives and/or of conspiracy and/or of potentially criminal conduct against one or more other legal practitioners in Norfolk Island without any apparent evidence or particulars being provided to support such allegations. (vi) The Registrar of the Court was obliged to communicate such allegations to each of the legal practitioners named or referred to by John Walsh of Brannagh in order to afford each such other legal practitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to respond to the Court in regard to such allegations made by John Walsh of Brannagh. (vii) John Walsh of Brannagh in his said letter failed to respond adequately or at all to the allegation of the complainant regarding the alleged representation to the complainant regarding the requirement for membership of the Norfolk Island Bar Association as a pre-condition for registration or admission as a lawyer in Norfolk Island except to assert or allege that the complainant was lying. (viii) Each of the other legal practitioners referred to by John Walsh of Brannagh has provided a personal response to the various allegations made so far as any allegation was relevant to the particular other legal practitioner. (ix) The complainant and each of the other lawyers referred to was provided with a copy of John Walsh of Brannagh's letter dated 17 August 2015 by the Registrar when their comment was sought. (x) The Registrar on considering the written responses considered that there was no apparent substance in regard to the allegations of conspiracy or improper motives as alleged by John Walsh of Brannagh against his fellow legal practitioners in Norfolk Island. (xi) John Walsh of Brannagh has not to date offered any apology to the Court and/or to any of the other legal practitioners adversely referred to by him for the offensive, discourteous, provocative and/or inflammatory contents of his 17 August 2015 letter. 6. Such further or other grounds as the Supreme Court may allow the Registrar or any other person to rely upon at the hearing and determination of this application subject to any directions of the Court in that regard.