The intercept that undid Howard Hilton … Conspiracy to corrupt the corrupt Rex Jackson … After 30 years of unfitness, NSW CA says Hilton still unfit … Amorality would undermine public confidence … Sophie Taylor with the latest
Hilton was an experienced criminal law solicitor with a flourishing practice. Between March and April 1983 he participated in a conspiracy to corrupt the NSW Minister for Corrective Service, Rex (Buckets) Jackson.
Under the early release scheme the minister himself could recommend eligible prisoners for early discharge from prison. Jackson was deep in gambling debts and the amount of prisoners being released under the scheme had been growing. Rumours were surfacing that Jackson was open to receiving bribes.
Hilton approached an intermediary, the criminal identity Frank Hakim, to organise a bribe. Hakim conjured approximately $10,000 from the brother of one of the prisoners, known as the “Broken Hill Three”, and had the money transferred to Jackson.
Hilton later telephoned Hakim to find out why the prisoners had not been released yet, and was caught on an AFP tap of Hakim’s phone.
Hilton, Hakim and Jackson were convicted on criminal conspiracy charges in 1986, and Hilton was struck off the jam roll two years later.
Hilton went to the High Court arguing that the wire tap was unconstitutional. A nice try but ultimately it was unsuccessful – Hilton finished his prison sentence in 1989.
Since his release, Hilton has been taking steps to ease himself back into the legal game. He’s 75 years-old, yet instead of looking at retirement he sought in 2015 to be readmitted as a solicitor.
His work includes assisting counsel, appearing at mentions and directions hearings (pursuant to leave) and drafting correspondence.
In 2014, he completed a graduate diploma in legal practice at the ANU, which had the effect that “the fit and proper person” requirement was the only outstanding element for a compliance certificate.
The Legal Professions Admissions Board refused his application and he appealed to the Supreme Court, submitting that he deeply ashamed of his conduct and had been in positions on responsibility within the legal industry for several years.
Justice Robert Beech-Jones was convinced that Hilton was contrite, but found that the gravity of the offence meant that he was not a fit and proper person to practice law.
Hilton came up with 18 grounds of appeal. Most notably, he took issue with the primary judge’s description of his conduct as occupying a “sustained period,” whereas it only took one month to organise the bribe.
Regardless of semantics, Bathurst CJ, Leeming JA and Sackville AJA found that the trial judge’s point still stood. Hilton’s conduct was not merely a “momentary lapse in judgment,” but was evidence of his “amorality”.
This point was reinforced by the fact that Hilton maintained his innocence through several trials and appeals in the years following his arrest.
Although he was sufficiently contrite, the court was concerned that Hilton could not explain the reasons for committing the crime.
This, coupled with the nature of the offence, would have the effect of undermining the public perception of the legal industry.
The court rejected the appeal and ordered Hilton to pay costs.