Disco Dave quits the Supremes so as to get more time on the dance floor … Local bookie gives odds for the field of possible replacements … Top family law man spanked by the bureau for muddling his dates … The Map of Tasmania
TASWEGIAN Supremo Disco Dave Porter has tossed it in with an announcement he’s leaving the job on May 21, just five days shy of eight years on the bench.
Disco has had stints as Administrator of Tasmanian after Hollywood Pete Underwood slapped the cue in the rack and more importantly was president of the Northern Tasmania Football Association.
He’s 62 and is understood to be quitting the bench because of a bad back, which makes sitting for long periods of time unbearable.
He describes his decision as a resignation rather than a retirement, so there’s life in the old break-dancer yet.
As a lawyer he was a safe pair of hands. One of his colleagues described him as, “Porter by name, Porter by nature. He never lost a case.”
Blowers told them that was a no go. Both have the reputation for being so ultra-careful about not wanting to make a mistake that their trials take days longer than they need to.
The Productivity Commission has just come up with comparative data that shows the Tasmanian court system has the largest and longest case backlog of any state.
Curiously the story appeared in the crocodile fanciers bible, the NT News.
Anyway, Disco’s pending departure has opened up a field of contenders. This is the way the bookies see it:
Another possibility could have been legal aid criminal lawyer Tam Jago SC. However, she’s about to be appointed a magistrate and might be kicking herself for jumping too early from legal aid’s mayhem.
Hobart family law stalwart Michael Trezise, a grand fromage at Dobson Mitchell & Allport, must have had a less than ideal Christmas after being spanked by the bureau for dishonourableness.
In some quarters Trezise is spoken of as the next and future Family Court judge for Van Diemen’s Land.
He consented to orders for a reprimand, a fine of 5,000 smackers and the costs of the Legal Profession Board, another $5,000.
The trouble arose because Michael allowed his client, Dr Helen Bound, to affirm an affidavit with a false date. Bound is the head of the Centre for Work and Learning at Singapore’s Institute for Adult Learning.
Prior to that she was a lecturer and researcher at the University of Tasmania.
On Feb. 4. 2013 Trezise and Doc Bound discussed whether she should apply for a divorce, but at that stage she was undecided.
She told the lawyer she was returning to Singapore and he agreed to her affirming an application for a divorce. He witnessed her sign part G of the application (where she swears the stated facts are true), which she dated Feb. 14, 2013.
On Feb. 8 Bound gave Trezise’s secretary the filing fee, but she still wanted to speak to him before it was filed
Between Feb. 9 and 13 there was an email exchange between the two about implications relating to family law property and financial issues.
On Feb. 14 Trezise signed part G on the application form and four days later he was instructed to file it, which he did on Feb. 20, 2013.
He knew that in the event the affidavit was relied upon at the hearing without any explanation, the court could have been misled into believing the affidavit had been affirmed on Feb, 14, 2013.
Around March 19, Trezise served his client’s husband with the application and a day later the husband told the lawyer that the application could not have been affirmed on Feb. 14 in front of the solicitor, because he knew she was in overseas on that date.
Smartly, Trezise wrote to the court registrar and fessed-up that the affidavit had been signed by the client on Feb. 4, not Feb. 14.
He told the registrar that the application should either be discontinued or dismissed. He also let the husband and the Legal Profession Board know what was going on.
His explanation was that at the time he was experiencing “an unhappy and personally difficult period in his life”, marked by marital breakdown, loss of self-esteem, dissatisfaction with work, increased alcohol use and depression.
The reprimand was to “serve as a reminder and warning to ensure he is honest in all times”. By way of statutory declaration he also undertook that he would not engage in similar conduct again.
This was not a happy situation. The lapse was not at the high end of the scale and was contrary to his “usual sound and honest judgment, which at the time was influenced by his health and personal circumstances”.
One old colleague observed that Trezise was a decent person who, after 30 years dealing with matrimonial clients, deserves a medal not a spank.