NSW BAR ASSOCIATION v STEVENS [2003] NSWCA 261

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : NSW BAR ASSOCIATION v STEVENS [2003] NSWCA 261 HEARING DATE(S) : 9th September 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 September 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Sheller JA at 2; Ipp JA at 60 DECISION : 1. A declaration that the opponent has been guilty of professional misconduct; 2. A declaration that the opponent is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Legal Practitioners; 3. An order that the name of the opponent be, and hereby is, removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners; 4. An order that the opponent pay the costs of and incidental to these proceedings.

CATCHWORDS : Legal Practitioner - Barristers - Removal from the Roll of Legal Practitioners - Professional misconduct - Fit and proper person - Failure to lodge tax returns - Where orders consented to and findings made LEGISLATION CITED : Taxation Administration Act 1953 CASES CITED : New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279 New South Wales Bar Association v Young [2003] NSWCA 228 PARTIES : New South Wales Bar Association - Claimant Clarence James Stevens - Opponent FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 41003/02 COUNSEL : P R Garling SC/C A Adamson - Claimant P LeG Brereton SC/M K Meek - Opponent SOLICITORS : Hicksons - Claimant Beazley Singleton - Opponent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 41003/02

MEAGHER JA SHELLER JA IPP JA NEW SOUTH WALES BAR ASSOCIATION v STEVENS A barrister failed to lodge tax returns and to pay income tax for close to 20 years. The Bar Association brought a summons seeking declarations that the barrister was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Legal Practitioners and was guilty of professional misconduct and an order that the barrister's name be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners. On the first day of the hearing, the barrister consented to the making of the declarations sought and an order removing his name from the Roll. Notwithstanding that consent, the Court considered it of particular significance that the Court should record its findings: