Au Cases NSW NSWCA 2018 230

Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Case Name: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South

Wales v Thomson
Medium Neutral Citation: [2018] NSWCA 230
Hearing Date(s): 10 October 2018
Decision Date: 17 October 2018
Before: Basten JA; Meagher JA; Simpson AJA
Decision: 1. Declare that Craig Robert Thomson is not a person

of good fame and character.
2. Declare that Craig Robert Thomson is not a fit and
proper person to remain on the roll of Australian
lawyers maintained by the Supreme Court of New
South Wales.
3. Order that the name of Craig Robert Thomson be
removed from the roll of Australian lawyers maintained
by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
4. Order that Craig Robert Thomson pay the
Prothonotary’s costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords: LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – inherent jurisdiction and

disciplinary powers – practitioner misappropriated funds
belonging to a union and dishonestly abused a fiduciary
or a quasi-fiduciary position in that union over an
extended period – practitioner convicted of stealing
cash and found to have contravened civil penalty
provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1998 (Cth) –
whether practitioner fit and proper to remain on the roll
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191

Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), ss 23, 264, 297
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 48
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 65A, r 2
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss 285, 286, 287
Cases Cited: A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South
Wales (2004) 216 CLR 253; [2004] HCA 1
Bridges v Law Society (NSW) [1983] 2 NSWLR 361
Council of New South Wales Bar Association v Power
(2008) 71 NSWLR 451
DPP v Thomson (County Court of Victoria, Douglas J,
15 December 2014)
DPP v Thomson (County Court of Victoria, Douglas J,
17 December 2014)
General Manager of the Fair Work Commission v
Thomson (No 3) [2015] FCA 1001
General Manager of the Fair Work Commission v
Thomson (No 4) [2015] FCA 1433
New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001)
52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284
New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001)
52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284
New South Wales Bar Association v Hamman [1999]
NSWCA 404; (1999) 217 ALR 553
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South
Wales v Livanes [2012] NSWCA 325
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South
Wales v Montenegro [2015] NSWCA 409
Prothonotary v Comeskey [2018] NSWCA 18
Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409
Re Hampton [2002] QCA 129
Re Veron; Ex parte Law Society of New South Wales
(1966) 84 WN (Pt 1) NSW 136
Thomas v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (2005)
1 Qd R 331; [2004] QCA 407
Wentworth v New South Wales Bar Association (1992)
176 CLR 239
Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New
South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South

Wales (Applicant)
Craig Robert Thomson (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
P Griffin SC, H Bennett (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor of NSW (Applicant)
No appearance (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2018/83791
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the
Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is
recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and
variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and
36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1 THE COURT: The respondent (Mr Craig Robert Thomson) was admitted to the
roll of legal practitioners in this State on 31 March 1995. He remains on the roll
of this Court as an Australian lawyer, but has never held a practising certificate
in any Australian jurisdiction. From around 1988, he was employed by the
Health Services Union (HSU), initially as an industrial officer in the New South
Wales branch. On 16 August 2002, he was elected as National Secretary of
the HSU, in which position he remained until resigning following his election as
a Member of the Federal Parliament for the seat of Dobell on 24 November
2007. He was subsequently found to have committed criminal offences, and
civil contraventions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (WR Act), in his
position as National Secretary.
2 On 11 October 2016, Mr Thomson applied to the Law Society of New South

Wales for a practising certificate. On 19 December 2016, the Law Society
Council notified him of its refusal to grant a practising certificate on the basis of
his criminal convictions. On 23 February 2017, the Law Society informed the
Prothonotary of the Court of that refusal. By summons filed on 15 March 2018,
the Prothonotary applied for declarations that Mr Thomson has been guilty of
professional misconduct, is not a person of good fame and character, and is
not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of legal practitioners of the
Court. The Prothonotary also seeks orders for the removal of his name from
that roll, and for costs. Mr Thomson neither contests that application nor
appeared in Court. In his letter addressed to the “Registrar and Members of the
Supreme Court of NSW” dated 25 July 2018, he stated:
I do not intend to make any statement in this matter. I am not contesting the
application and will not be appearing for health and financial reasons that saw
me not contest the [Fair Work] application in the civil matter referred to in
these proceedings.
I accept the position of the Law Society of NSW and do not wish to incur costs
to anyone for this matter which is why I volunteered to undertake not to apply
for a practice certificate for such time as the Law Society saw fit.
Nature of the application
3 As this proceeding invokes the Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction and
disciplinary powers with respect to a legal practitioner, it is assigned to the
Court of Appeal: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 48(2)(k); Supreme Court
Rules 1970 (NSW), Pt 65A, r 2. Although the summons might also have
constituted an application under Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (LPUL),
s 23(1)(b), the Prothonotary only relies on the inherent jurisdiction and powers,
preserved by LPUL, s 264(1). Thus, the order for removal does not depend on
a finding that Mr Thomson engaged in “professional misconduct” as defined in
LPUL, s 297 (and a declaration in those broad terms in this application would
have little if any utility). Rather, “the ultimate issue is whether the practitioner is
shown not to be a fit and proper person to be a legal practitioner of [this] Court”
as “at the time of the hearing”: A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New
South Wales (2004) 216 CLR 253; [2004] HCA 1 at [15], [21].
4 In determining such an application, the Court must satisfy itself that any orders
made are appropriate in all the circumstances, even if the proceeding is
uncontested: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v
Livanes [2012] NSWCA 325 at [27] (McColl JA). The Court should also make
appropriately detailed factual findings, both to advance public confidence in the
control and discipline of the profession and to assist those tasked with
determining any future application for readmission: Bridges v Law Society
(NSW) [1983] 2 NSWLR 361 at 362 (Moffitt P); New South Wales Bar
Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284 at [24]
(Spigelman CJ, Mason P and Handley JA agreeing); Council of New South
Wales Bar Association v Power (2008) 71 NSWLR 451 at [9]–[11]
(Hodgson JA, Beazley and McColl JJA agreeing).
Factual background
5 The findings necessary to determine this application have two sources in the
evidence. First, an agreement as to facts for the purpose of this proceeding
signed by Mr Thomson on 13 June 2018 establishes the nature and
circumstances of his offences and contraventions: see Evidence Act 1995
(NSW), s 191. Secondly, Mr Thomson’s correspondence with the Law Society,
annexed to an affidavit sworn on 15 March 2018 by Ms Foord, the Director of
Professional Standards at the Law Society, reveals his current attitude towards
his earlier conduct. In making the findings set out below, it has not been
necessary to determine the admissibility in this proceeding of the “Statement of
Non-Disputed Facts” prepared by the prosecution for use in the County Court
of Victoria appeal by way of a hearing de novo from Mr Thomson’s earlier
conviction and sentence in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.
6 Two months after he was elected as National Secretary of the HSU,

Mr Thomson established a business account for the HSU National Office in
Victoria with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA). He was the only
signatory to this account, which included a CBA credit MasterCard with a cash
withdrawal facility accessible by PIN. In accordance with HSU policy, that card
was only to be used for work-related expenses. Irregularities in the accounts
for the card were, however, revealed by an exit audit conducted after
Mr Thomson’s resignation as National Secretary.
7 On 15 December 2014, in the proceeding in the County Court, Mr Thomson

was found guilty of 12 charges of stealing cash belonging to the HSU,
amounting to at least $5,350, over a four-year period from October 2003 to
October 2007: Director of Public Prosecutions v Thomson (County Court of
Victoria, Judge Douglas, 15 December 2014). Those charges are attached as
Annexure A to the statement of agreed facts and to these reasons.
Mr Thomson does not dispute that he engaged in the conduct that was the
subject of those charges, and in particular that he stole cash belonging to the
HSU using the MasterCard cash withdrawal facility. On 17 December 2014, he
was convicted and, by way of sentence, ordered to pay an aggregate fine of
$25,000 and compensation to the HSU of $5,650: Director of Public
Prosecutions v Thomson (County Court of Victoria, Judge Douglas, 17
December 2014). As at 13 June 2018, he had paid the fine, but not the
compensation.
8 Earlier, in 2012, the Fair Work Commission had commenced civil penalty and
compensation order proceedings against Mr Thomson for contraventions of the
WR Act. On 11 September 2015, Mr Thompson was found to have
contravened ss 285, 286 and 287 of that Act, which required him to exercise
his powers and discharge his obligations with reasonable care and diligence,
and in good faith in what he believed to be the best interests of the HSU and
for a proper purpose; and prohibited improper use of his position to gain any
advantage for himself or cause detriment to the HSU: General Manager of the
Fair Work Commission v Thomson (No 3) [2015] FCA 1001 (Jessup J). Again,
Mr Thomson does not dispute that he engaged in the conduct forming the
basis of the contraventions as described in Annexure B to the statement of
agreed facts and to these reasons, and numbered using Arabic and Roman
numerals.
9 That conduct, over a period between September 2005 and December 2007,
may be summarised as follows:
(1) using HSU credit cards to purchase escort services and make cash
withdrawals for private use or to fund Mr Thomson’s and his wife’s travel
expenditure, in every case not reporting such use; and
(2) applying HSU funds or other resources to further his election campaign
for the seat of Dobell, including by direct expenditure (on, for example,
campaign travel, postage and advertising expenses), donations to local
charities and causes (such as Central Coast Convoy and Golden Years
Collectibles) and the use of the services of HSU employees (specifically
Ms Stevens and Mr Burke) for the purposes of that campaign.
10 On 15 September 2015, Jessup J made orders imposing an aggregate penalty
of $175,550, but providing that penalties imposed for contraventions identified
by a Roman numeral would be stayed if the penalty with a corresponding
Arabic numeral ($80,050 in total) was paid within 74 days. In addition,
Mr Thomson was ordered to pay the HSU compensation of $231,243 and pre-
judgment interest of $146,937: General Manager of the Fair Work Commission
v Thomson (No 4) [2015] FCA 1433 (Jessup J). As at 13 June 2018, he had
not paid the penalties, compensation or interest.
11 By way of disclosure directed to whether he considered himself a “fit and
proper person”, Mr Thomson’s application for a practising certificate in October
2016 noted a conviction for “theft of between $3500 and $5500 from employer”
and sentence by way of a “fine of $25,000”. But it made no reference to the
contraventions of the WR Act, which Ms Foord subsequently raised in a letter
notifying of a show cause event. In response, Mr Thomson challenged some
uncontested allegations in the criminal proceeding and conclusions in the
contravention proceeding. He also referred to his “fragile mental condition and
related mental health issues”; insisted that he had “largely spent a lifetime in
honourable public service”; and asserted that he was a “person of good
character and a fit and proper person that can honourably conduct himself as a
solicitor if given that opportunity”. In later correspondence, Ms Foord notified
Mr Thomson that she proposed to ask the Council to refuse his application. In
his further submissions to the Council, Mr Thomson claimed that he had
accepted “responsibility for the outcome of [the two Court decisions] and …
either repaid or [was] in the process of repaying fines and debts that arise from
those two proceedings”.
Legal principles
12 The ultimate question for this Court is whether Mr Thomson is a fit and proper
person to remain on the roll. Its determination requires the application of
established principles reflecting the purpose of disciplinary proceedings against
a legal practitioner, which is the protection of the public, rather than the
punishment of that individual: Wentworth v New South Wales Bar Association
(1992) 176 CLR 239 at 250–251 (Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ). In
New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001]
NSWCA 284 at [20], Spigelman CJ identified four “interrelated interests” which
may be regarded as protected by such proceedings:
Clients must feel secure in confiding their secrets and entrusting their most
personal affairs to lawyers. Fellow practitioners must be able to depend
implicitly on the word and the behaviour of their colleagues. The judiciary must
have confidence in those who appear before the courts. The public must have
confidence in the legal profession by reason of the central role the profession
plays in the administration of justice. Many aspects of the administration of
justice depend on the trust by the judiciary and/or the public in the
performance of professional obligations by professional people.
13 Three principles are particularly significant in this application.
14 First, although the fact of a criminal conviction and sentence is not necessarily
sufficient to disqualify a person from continuing as a member of the legal
profession, the defects of character revealed by the criminal conduct, and the
disgrace flowing from conviction, may be incompatible with practice: Ziems v
The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR
279 especially at 288 (Fullagar J), 298 (Kitto J). That consequence follows
more readily in relation to crimes involving dishonesty and misappropriation. In
Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409 at 420, Dixon J observed that a member of the
Bar must:
… command the personal confidence, not only of lay and professional clients,
but of other members of the Bar and of judges. It would almost seem to go
without saying that conviction of a crime of dishonesty of so grave a kind as
housebreaking and stealing is incompatible with the existence in a candidate
for admission to the Bar of the reputation and the more enduring moral
qualities denoted by the expression, ‘good fame and character’, which
describe the test of his ethical fitness for the profession.
15 These considerations are not limited to applicants for admission to the Bar;
they apply with equal, if not greater, force to practitioners who may seek to
work as solicitors, in which capacity they would be entitled to hold trust moneys
on behalf of clients. And an unfitness to do so may be shown by the
commission of misappropriation offences with less objective seriousness than
crimes such as break, enter and steal.
16 Secondly, conduct occurring outside the practice of law may nevertheless

indicate a present unfitness to practice: Ziems at 290 (Fullagar J). As explained
by Mason P in New South Wales Bar Association v Hamman [1999] NSWCA
404; (1999) 217 ALR 553 at [21]:
The fact that the misconduct is not directly involved with practice in the law
makes no difference where, as is conceded in the present case, the
practitioner’s behaviour would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful and
dishonourable by professional brethren of good repute and competency
(Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB
750; Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v Costello [1984] 3 NSWLR
201 at 203).”
17 Mr Hamman’s tax offences were described as involving “significant and
prolonged dishonesty for personal gain”: at [101]. Repeated misappropriation
from any entity that has entrusted a person with control of its funds will expose
a characteristic inconsistent with the holding of trust moneys for clients.
18 Thirdly, fitness to practise requires an appreciation of the high degree of trust
that the court, of necessity, reposes in legal practitioners and of their general
and ongoing obligation of candour to the court in which they desire to serve as
an “agent of justice”: Davis at 426 (Dixon J); Prothonotary v Montenegro [2015]
NSWCA 409 at [70] (Meagher and Leeming JJA and Emmett AJA);
Prothonotary v Comeskey [2018] NSWCA 18 at [29]–[31] (Basten JA). That
obligation of candour applies especially in relation to the disclosure of past
misconduct that is otherwise relevant to fitness to practise. Non-compliance
with this obligation may confirm that defects in character remain or
demonstrate a further inadequacy: see Thomas v Legal Practitioners
Admissions Board (2005) 1 Qd R 331 at 333; [2004] QCA 407, where de
Jersey CJ observed that “making candid disclosure of relevant information …
demonstrates a proper perception of [the] duty” and thereby demonstrates
good character.
Determination
19 The evidence establishes, and we find, that Mr Thomson engaged in the
criminal and contravening conduct described in Annexures A and B to this
judgment, and that he was convicted of the offences and found to have
committed the contraventions described in the judgments of the County Court
of Victoria and Federal Court of Australia referred to in [7] and [8] above. That
conduct included theft and other misappropriation of funds belonging to the
HSU and abuse of a fiduciary or a quasi-fiduciary position, in each case over
an extended period. Mr Thomson’s conduct involved, in the language of
Hamman, “significant and prolonged dishonesty for personal gain”.
20 Mr Thomson has not suggested that the deficiencies of character revealed by

that conduct are shown no longer to be present and that he has undergone a
reformation of character sufficient to justify the conclusion that he is presently a
fit and proper person. To do so would first require that he demonstrate an
appreciation of his obligation of candour in relation to that past conduct.
Mr Thomson has neither demonstrated that appreciation nor acted consistently
with it. In his application to the Law Society for a practising certificate, he failed
to disclose the Federal Court findings as to his contraventions of the WR Act.
He maintained in that application that he was a fit and proper person “despite
the conviction” for a number of reasons, none of which included a candid and
comprehensive disclosure of, or explanation for, the misconduct outlined
above, so as to justify a finding that he truly understands the “high degree of
trust which the Court, of necessity, must repose in a person whom it endorses
as a fit and proper person to practise”: Re Hampton [2002] QCA 129 at [37]
(White J). Finally, he has not paid the penalties ordered by the Federal Court or
the compensation ordered by either Court or otherwise demonstrated an
insight into the serious deficiencies revealed by his conduct.
21 For all these reasons, we are satisfied that presently Mr Thomson is not a fit
and proper person to remain on the roll of lawyers. Accordingly, the Court
makes the following declarations and orders:
(1) Declare that Craig Robert Thomson is not a person of good fame and
character;
(2) Declare that Craig Robert Thomson is not a fit and proper person to
remain on the roll of Australian lawyers maintained by the Supreme
Court of New South Wales;
(3) Order that the name of Craig Robert Thomson be removed from the roll
of Australian lawyers maintained by the Supreme Court of New South
Wales;
(4) Order that Craig Robert Thomson pay the Prothonotary’s costs of the
proceedings.
**********
Annexure A: Director of Public Prosecutions v Thomson (Reasons for Sentence,

County Court of Victoria Judge Douglas, 17 December 2014)
No Charge
Craig Thomson at Melbourne between 9 October and 10 October

9 2003 did steal cash being property belonging to the Health
Services Union and valued at $200.00
Craig Thomson at Melbourne on 22 November 2005 did steal cash

22 being property belonging to the Health Services Union and valued
at $200.00
Craig Thomson at Melbourne between 20 April and 21 April 2006
32 did steal cash being property belonging to the Health Services
Union and valued at $400.00
Craig Thomson at Melbourne between 12 June and 13 June 2007

Craig Thomson at Melbourne between 19 September and 20

58 September 2007 did steal cash being property belonging to the
Health Services Union and valued at $800.00
Craig Thomson at Melbourne between 7 June and 8 June 2006

Craig Thomson at Melbourne on 15 December 2006 did steal cash

at $500.00
Craig Thomson at Melbourne on 9 October 2007 did steal cash

at $350.00
Craig Thomson at Melbourne between 27 May and 28 May 2005

Craig Thomson at Melbourne on 13 June 2007 did steal cash

at $500.00
Craig Thomson at Melbourne on 19 June 2007 did steal cash

220
being property belonging to the Health Services Union and valued
at $500.00
Craig Thomson at Melbourne on 15 September 2005 did steal

223 cash being property belonging to the Health Services Union and
valued at $500.00
Sentence
With conviction order that Craig Thomson pay an aggregate fine in

the sum of $25,000.00
Order that Craig Thomson pay the amount to the Registrar of the
County Court
Order that Craig Thomson pay compensation in the sum of

$5,650.00 as follows: -$5,650 to the Health Services Union of
Australia
Annexure B: General Manager of Fair Work Commission v Thomson (No 4) [2015]

FCA 1433 (Jessup J)
1 2 3
No. Conduct Penalty
The respondent’s improper use of his position as

National Secretary of the Health Services Union of
Australia to gain an advantage for himself, and to
1 cause detriment to that union, by causing the cost $4,800
of personal services obtained by him on or about
8 April 2005 from Keywed Pty Ltd, in the sum of
$2,475, to be paid by that union.
The exercise of the respondent’s powers and the

(i) discharge of his duties as National Secretary of $4,500
the Health Services Union of Australia otherwise

than in good faith in what he believed were the
best interests of that union, and otherwise than for
a proper purpose, by omitting to record the true
nature of the payment of $2,475 made to Keywed
Pty Ltd in respect of personal services obtained by
him on or about 8 April 2005, and by causing the
account received from the issuer of the credit card
upon which that payment was made to be settled
by that union.

7 May 2005 from International Immobiliare Pty
Ltd, in the sum of $770, to be paid by that union.

discharge of his duties as National Secretary of
(ii) $4,500
nature of the payment of $770 made to
International Immobiliare Pty Ltd in respect of
personal services obtained by him on or about
May 2005, and by causing the account received
from the issuer of the credit card upon which that
payment was made to be settled by that union.

3 National Secretary of the Health Services Union of $4,800

cause detriment to that union, by causing the cost
12 June 2005 from Nolta Pty Ltd, in the sum of
$418, to be paid by that union.

(iii) $4,500
nature of the payment of $418 made to Nolta Pty
Ltd in respect of personal services obtained by
him on or about 12 June 2005, and by causing the
by that union.

cause detriment to that union, by causing the
costs incurred by himself and his wife in travelling
4 $4,800
from Melbourne to the Central Coast, and the
accommodation and incidental costs associated
with that travel, over the period 16-19 September
2005, in the sum of $3,575.68, to be paid by that
union.

(iv) the Health Services Union of Australia otherwise $4,500

a proper purpose, by causing the costs incurred
by himself and his wife in travelling from
Melbourne to the Central Coast, and the
accommodation and incidental costs associated
with that travel, over the period 16-19 September
2005, in the sum of $3,575.68, to be paid by that
union.

25 August 2006 from Staff Call, in the sum of
$660, to be paid by that union.

(v) $4,500
nature of the payment of $660 made to Staff Call
in respect of personal services obtained by him on
or about 25 August 2006, and by causing the
by that union.

6 Australia to gain an advantage for himself, and to $4,800
cause detriment to that union, by causing the cost

16 August 2007 from Keywed Pty Ltd, in the sum
of $385, to be paid by that union

(vi) $4,500
nature of the payment of $385 made to Keywed
Pty Ltd in respect of personal services obtained by
him on or about 16 August 2007, and by causing
the account received from the issuer of the credit
card upon which that payment was made to be
settled by that union.

cause detriment to that union, by, between about
September 2005 and December 2007, deploying
7 $5,500
the services of Criselee Stevens on work which
related either to the elevation of his own profile in
the Central Coast in the period leading up to the
Australian Labor Party pre-selection process or to
his election campaign thereafter.
The respondent’s exercise of his powers and the

the Health Services Union of Australia, between
(vii) about September 2005 and December 2007, by $5,000
deploying the services of Criselee Stevens on

work which related either to the elevation of his
own profile in the Central Coast in the period
leading up to the Australian Labor Party pre-
selection process, or to his election campaign
thereafter, that exercise of powers and discharge
of duties having been done neither in good faith in
what the respondent believed were the best
interests of that union nor for a proper purpose.
In the exercise of the respondent’s powers and

the discharge of his duties as National Secretary
of the Health Services Union of Australia between
about September 2005 and December 2007,
failing to do so with the degree of care and
diligence that a reasonable person would exercise
in the circumstances by causing an account to be
kept –
(vii) $3,000
(a) of the time that Criselee Stevens, an employee
of that union under the respondent’s supervision,
was occupied on the work of that union and on
work which had other purposes, and
(b) of the outlays which Ms Stevens made on the

union's credit card which the respondent’s had
caused to be issued to her which were for the
purposes of that union and for other purposes.

8 April 2006 and March 2007, deploying the $5,500
services of Matthew Burke on work which related

either to the elevation of his own profile in the
Central Coast in the period leading up to the
Australian Labor Party pre-selection process or to
his election campaign thereafter.

about April 2006 and March 2007, by deploying
the services of Matthew Burke on work which
related either to the elevation of his own profile in
(viii) the Central Coast in the period leading up to the $5,000
Australian Labor Party pre-selection process, or to
his election campaign thereafter, that exercise of
powers and discharge of duties having been done
neither in good faith in what the respondent
believed were the best interests of that union nor
for a proper purpose.

about April 2006 and March 2007, failing to do so
with the degree of care and diligence that a
reasonable person would exercise in the
circumstances by causing an account to be kept
—
(viii) $3,000
(a) of the time that Matthew Burke, an employee
of that union under the respondent’s supervision,
was occupied on the work of that union and on
work which had other purposes, and
(b) of the outlays which Mr Burke made on the

union's credit card which the respondent’s had
caused to be issued to him which were for the
purposes of that union and for other purposes.
9 March and December 2007, authorising Matthew $5,000
Burke, no longer an employee of that union to
retain his union credit card to be used in respect
of outlays which were not for the purposes of that
union.

about March and December 2007, by authorising
Matthew Burke, no longer an employee of that
union, to retain his union credit card to be used in
(ix) $4,500
respect of outlays which were not for the purposes
of that union, that exercise of powers and
discharge of duties having been done neither in
good faith in what the respondent believed were
the best interests of that union nor for a proper
purpose.

about March and December 2007, failing to do so
(ix) $2,500
circumstances in that the respondent authorised
Matthew Burke, no longer an employee of that
union, to retain his union credit card to be used in
respect of outlays which were not for the purposes
of that union.

cause detriment to that union, by, in or about May
2006, causing that union to make outlays
amounting to $3,747.85 in respect of the activities
10 $2,500
of a community organisation founded on his
initiative called "Coastal Voice", the making of
those outlays having been substantially influenced
by the respondent’s desire to increase his profile
on the Central Coast in order to further his political
career.

the Health Services Union of Australia, in or about
May 2006, by causing that union to make outlays
(x) initiative called “Coastal Voice”, that exercise of $2,000
for a proper purpose, but for the purpose of
increasing the respondent’s profile on the Central
Coast and the furtherance of his political career.

(x) of the Health Services Union of Australia in or $1,000
about May 2006, failing to do so with the degree

of care and diligence that a reasonable person
would exercise in the circumstances in that the
respondent caused that union to make outlays
initiative called "Coastal Voice", the making of
those outlays having been substantially influenced
by the respondent’s desire to increase his profile
on the Central Coast in order to further his political
career.

cause detriment to that union, by, in about July
and December 2006, causing that union to pay
11 $2,500
$3,500 in respect of tables at a function organised
by the Federal Electoral Council for the electorate
of Dobell where the respondent was seeking pre-
selection as the candidate for the Australian Labor
Party.

the Health Services Union of Australia, in about
July and December 2006, by causing that union to
pay $3,500 in respect of tables at a function
organised by the Federal Electoral Council for the
(xi) electorate of Dobell that exercise of powers and $2,000

purpose, but pursuant to the respondent’s
endeavour to secure pre-selection as the
candidate for the Australian Labor Party in that
electorate.

of the Health Services Union of Australia in about
July and December 2006, failing to do so with the
degree of care and diligence that a reasonable
person would exercise in the circumstances in that
the respondent caused that union to pay $3,500 in
(xi) $1,000
respect of tables at a function organised by the
Federal Electoral Council for the electorate of
Dobell without maintaining a scrupulous
separation of the transactions for which he might
properly use the funds and resources of that union
and those which he ought to have funded
otherwise.

12 $4,000
April and December 2007, causing that union to
pay $4,103 for the expenses of his campaign
office as the Australian Labor Party candidate for
the electorate of Dobell.

about April and December 2007, by causing that
(xii) $3,500
union to pay $4,103 for the expenses of his
campaign office as the Australian Labor Party
candidate for the electorate of Dobell, that
exercise of powers and discharge of duties having
been done neither in good faith in what the
respondent believed were the best interests of
that union nor for a proper purpose.

about April and December 2007, failing to do so
circumstances in that the respondent caused that
(xii) $3,000
union to pay $4,103 for the expenses of his
campaign office as the Australian Labor Party
candidate for the electorate of Dobell, without]
maintaining a scrupulous separation of the
transactions for which he might properly use the
funds and resources of that union and those which
he ought to have funded otherwise.

13 $3,000
July and October 2007, causing that union to pay
$1,277.96 for the expenses of operating a
promotional bus in his campaign as the Australian
Labor Party candidate for the electorate of Dobell.

(xiii) $2,500
about July and October 2007, by causing that
union to pay $1,277.96 for the expenses of
operating a promotional bus in his campaign as
the Australian Labor Party candidate for the
electorate of Dobell, that exercise of powers and
purpose.

about July and October 2007, failing to do so with
the degree of care and diligence that a reasonable
the respondent caused that union to pay
(xiii) $2,000
$1,277.96 for the expenses of operating a
promotional bus in his campaign as the Australian
Labor Party candidate for the electorate of Dobell,
without maintaining a scrupulous separation of the

14 $3,250
May and July 2007, causing that union to pay
$7,253.17 as postage expenses in his campaign
as the Australian Labor Party candidate for the
electorate of Dobell.

(xiv) discharge of his duties as National Secretary of $2,750

about May and July 2007, by causing that union to
pay $7,253.17 as postage expenses in his
campaign as the Australian Labor Party candidate
for the electorate of Dobell, that exercise of

about May and July 2007, failing to do so with the
the respondent caused that union to pay
(xiv) $2,250
$7,253.17 as postage expenses in his campaign
as the Australian Labor Party candidate for the
electorate of Dobell, without maintaining a
scrupulous separation of the transactions for
which he might properly use the funds and
resources of that union and those which he ought
to have funded otherwise.

cause detriment to that union, by, in or about May
15 $3,500
2007, causing that union to pay $12,511.40 on
advertising related to his election campaign as the
Australian Labor Party candidate for the electorate
of Dobell.
(xv) The respondent’s exercise of his powers and the $3,000

May 2007, by causing that union to pay
$12,511.40 on advertising related to his election
for the electorate of Dobell, that exercise of

of the Health Services Union of Australia in or
about May 2007, failing to do so with the degree
of care and diligence that a reasonable person
would exercise in the circumstances in that the
respondent caused that union to pay $12,511.40
(xv) $2,500
on advertising related to his election campaign as
the Australian Labor Party candidate for the
electorate of Dobell, without maintaining a
scrupulous separation of the transactions for
which he might properly use the funds and
resources of that union and those which he ought
to have funded otherwise.

16 cause detriment to that union, by, between about $3,500
October and November 2007, causing that union

to pay $18,733.00 on radio advertising related to
his election campaign as the Australian Labor
Party candidate for the electorate of Dobell.

about October and November 2007, by causing
that union to pay $18,733.00 on radio advertising
(xvi) related to his election campaign as the Australian $3,000
that exercise of powers and discharge of duties
having been done neither in good faith in what the

about October and November 2007, failing to do
so with the degree of care and diligence that a
(xvi) $2,500
union to pay $18,733.00 on radio advertising
related to his election campaign as the Australian

17 Australia to gain an advantage for himself, and to $3,500

May and November 2007, causing that union to
pay $10,763.00 on printing related to his election
for the electorate of Dobell.

about May and November 2007, by causing that
union to pay $10,763.00 on printing related to his
(xvii) election campaign as the Australian Labor Party $3,000
candidate for the electorate of Dobell, that
exercise of powers and discharge of duties having
been done neither in good faith in what the

about May and November 2007, failing to do so
(xvii) $2,500
union to pay $10,763.00 on printing related to his
election campaign as the Australian Labor Party
candidate for the electorate of Dobell, without
maintaining a scrupulous separation of the

18 the discharge of his duties as National Secretary $3,500

about 2006, failing to do so with the degree of
care and diligence that a reasonable person would
exercise in the circumstances in that he caused
that union to enter into a contract with the Central
Coast Rugby League, under which that union
incurred a liability of $106,393.23, without the prior
approval of the National Executive or the National
Council.

of the Health Services Union of Australia on or
about 8 August 2006, failing to do so with the
19 person would exercise in the circumstances in that $750
he caused that union to make a payment of
$2,400.00 to Julie Williamson for a multiple
sclerosis fundraising lunch, without the prior
approval of the National Executive or the National
Council.

cause detriment to that union, by, in or about
20 $1,250
September 2006, causing that union to make a
$5,000 donation to “Central Coast Convoy for
Kids” without the prior approval of the National
Executive or the National Council of that union.

(xx) $1,000
September 2006, by causing that union to make a
$5,000 donation to “Central Coast Convoy for
Kids” without the prior approval of the National
Executive or the National Council of that union,
that exercise of powers and discharge of duties
having been done neither in good faith in what the

about September 2006, failing to do so with the
(xx) $750
the respondent caused that union to make a
$5,000 donation to "Central Coast Convoy for
Kids' without the prior approval of the National
Executive or the National Council.

cause detriment to that union, by, on or about 25
November 2006, causing that union to pay $2,050
21 $2,500
for the purchase of sporting memorabilia to be
used for fund raising purposes by the Federal
Electoral Council for the electorate of Dobell
where the respondent was seeking pre-selection
as the candidate for the Australian Labor Party.

(xxi) $2,000
the Health Services Union of Australia, on or
about 25 November 2006, by causing that union
to pay $2,050 for the purchase of sporting
memorabilia to be used for fund raising purposes
by the Federal Electoral Council for the electorate
of Dobell, that exercise of powers and discharge
of duties having been done neither in good faith in
interests of that union nor for a proper purpose,
but pursuant to the respondent’s endeavour to
secure pre-selection as the candidate for the
Australian Labor Party in that electorate.
ln the exercise of the respondent’s powers and the

the Health Services Union of Australia on or about
25 November 2006, failing to do so with the
the respondent caused that union to pay $2,050
(xxi) $1,000
for the purchase of sporting memorabilia to be
used for fund raising purposes by the Federal
Electoral Council for the electorate of Dobell

22 cause detriment to that union, by, in or about $1,500
August and December 2007, causing that union to

make a $10,000 donation to “Dads in Education”
without the prior approval of the National
Executive or the National Council of that union.

August and December 2007, by causing that
union to make a $10,000 donation to “Dads in
(xxii) Education” without the prior approval of the $1,250
National Executive or the National Council of that
union, that exercise of powers and discharge of
duties having been done neither in good faith in
interests of that union nor for a proper purpose.

about August and December 2007, failing to do so
(xxii) $1,000
union to make a $10,000 donation to “Dads in
Education” without the prior approval of the
National Executive or the National Council.

Au Cases NSW NSWCA 2018 230

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Au Cases NSW NSWCA 2018 230

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Name: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South

Medium Neutral Citation: [2018] NSWCA 230

Hearing Date(s): 10 October 2018

Decision Date: 17 October 2018

Before: Basten JA; Meagher JA; Simpson AJA

Decision: 1. Declare that Craig Robert Thomson is not a person

Catchwords: LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – inherent jurisdiction and

Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South

File Number(s): 2018/83791

2 On 11 October 2016, Mr Thomson applied to the Law Society of New South

6 Two months after he was elected as National Secretary of the HSU,

7 On 15 December 2014, in the proceeding in the County Court, Mr Thomson

16 Secondly, conduct occurring outside the practice of law may nevertheless

20 Mr Thomson has not suggested that the deficiencies of character revealed by

Annexure A: Director of Public Prosecutions v Thomson (Reasons for Sentence,

Craig Thomson at Melbourne between 9 October and 10 October

Craig Thomson at Melbourne on 22 November 2005 did steal cash

Craig Thomson at Melbourne between 12 June and 13 June 2007

Craig Thomson at Melbourne between 19 September and 20

Craig Thomson at Melbourne between 7 June and 8 June 2006

Craig Thomson at Melbourne on 15 December 2006 did steal cash

Craig Thomson at Melbourne on 9 October 2007 did steal cash

Craig Thomson at Melbourne between 27 May and 28 May 2005

Craig Thomson at Melbourne on 13 June 2007 did steal cash

Craig Thomson at Melbourne on 19 June 2007 did steal cash

Craig Thomson at Melbourne on 15 September 2005 did steal

With conviction order that Craig Thomson pay an aggregate fine in

Order that Craig Thomson pay compensation in the sum of

Annexure B: General Manager of Fair Work Commission v Thomson (No 4) [2015]

No. Conduct Penalty

The respondent’s improper use of his position as

The exercise of the respondent’s powers and the

the Health Services Union of Australia otherwise

The respondent’s improper use of his position as

The exercise of the respondent’s powers and the

The respondent’s improper use of his position as

Australia to gain an advantage for himself, and to

The exercise of the respondent’s powers and the

The respondent’s improper use of his position as

The exercise of the respondent’s powers and the

than in good faith in what he believed were the

The respondent’s improper use of his position as

The exercise of the respondent’s powers and the

The respondent’s improper use of his position as

cause detriment to that union, by causing the cost

The exercise of the respondent’s powers and the

The respondent’s improper use of his position as

The respondent’s exercise of his powers and the

deploying the services of Criselee Stevens on

In the exercise of the respondent’s powers and

(b) of the outlays which Ms Stevens made on the

The respondent’s improper use of his position as

services of Matthew Burke on work which related

The respondent’s exercise of his powers and the

In the exercise of the respondent’s powers and

(b) of the outlays which Mr Burke made on the

The respondent’s exercise of his powers and the

In the exercise of the respondent’s powers and

The respondent’s improper use of his position as