Stop the presses – the WCC has made a decision … QCs and the crown’s work … Taxi! … Invalid disciplinary cases validated … Public purpose fund raided … Tasmanian judge tongue-lashes Sydney lawyer … Theodora sniffs around the traps 

The mission is not to publish decisions by arbitrators on its website, on Jade, Austlii or LexisNexis for seven days after delivery to the parties. Judgments are effective from their date of delivery yet there is an official time warp before the world can know. 

The same applies to presidential appeal decisions. 

The reason is that it gives time to the parties to get stuff about which they are uncomfortable to be removed from the reasons or to apply to withhold a decision from publication – maybe indefinitely. 

This doesn’t entirely make sense because sensitive personal issues can be identified prior to a hearing – they do not suddenly emerge after a decision has been handed down. 

A party may also make an application for non-publication at a hearing and a decision-maker may recommend that the reasons not be published, even though the WCC doesn’t have the power to suppress publication of its decisions. 

It also raises interesting questions about the power of the WCC to change decisions after they have been delivered. Even more troubling, the commission thinks it has the authority to tell lawyers what to do.

The president of the WCC, Judge Gerard Phillips, recently issued a ukase saying it was WCC policy that lawyers for the parties should not distribute copies of decisions within the seven day period. 

The official publication policy is spelled out here. There was a meeting of steak-knife holders on October 9, where it was decided to somehow or other enforce the policy prohibiting lawyers from distributing decisions and determinations before seven days is up. 

The mischief is that lawyers who are acting for people who are not parties to a decision are at a distinct disadvantage if they cannot expeditiously get their hands on findings. 

Surely, the Law Society would rise-up and smite this unhelpful suppression policy.   

Stories of silken excess continue to surface following our recent story on Yarraside’s SC to QC conversion rate and how the regal bauble cuts the mustard in the colonies. 

One tale shows how the meaning, dignity and purpose of the Queen’s Counsel decoration has eroded. 

Back when Tom Hughes was still playing the trade, he was briefed by the NSW Crown Solicitor at a designated fee. According to solicitors then in the Crown Sols office, just before the hearing Hughes got jammed and after some discussion it was agreed that the brief should be sent to Alec Shand – a QC but not as high in the pecking order as Hughes. 

In fact, when Shand went to the bar he read with T.E.F. Hughes. 

Shand promptly struck out the fee that had been set by the Crown Solicitor and in a flush of narcissism inserted a higher figure. 

The Crown Solicitor wrote a note to Shand referring to the obligations of Queen’s Counsel – stating that the higher fee would be paid if he really wished and that he presumed Shand was aware of the implications of that. 

The sting was that Shand had not kept to an implied historical term in the appointment of QCs – that they had an obligation to represent the crown, without a fee. It was only in more money-conscious and less noble times the Crown Solicitor invariably paid an ex gratia amount. 

By seeking to raise the ex gratia payment, a silk would not then be regarded as a proper Queen’s Counsel – whereupon, the penny dropped and Shand decided to accept the lower Hughes’ fee. 

Theodora’s feeling is that wherever QC appointments are restored in the colonies, those silks should all accept the historical underpinning of the office, and do the crown’s work fearlessly and feelessly. 

In NSW there are 36 QCs who hold practising tickets. 

Twitter is bursting with insights into the plight of Sydney barristers waiting at taxi ranks. Here’s Dominique Hogan-Doran SC, 5 Wentworth, with a response from Catherine Gleeson, New Chambers …  

Whenever this happens to me at the cab rank outside work I get out of the cab, stand at the front of the queue and get an uber so the rest of the queue knows that the reason they have to wait longer is because the front guy refused my fare.

— Catherine Gleeson (@CathGleeson) November 8, 2019

To the relief of the Law Society, the Bar Association and the Legal Services Commissioner the Justice Legislation Amendment Bill No 2 sailed through the NSW parliament and got Gov. Margaret Beazley’s thump print on Friday, November 22. 

Retrospective amendments now validate all the findings of the Bureau de Spank that went askew because of the professional associations inability to read the Legal Profession Uniform Law.

The upshot was that NCAT found in numerous lawyer disciplinary applications that there was a failure to properly delegate cases from the LSC to the professional bodies and therefore a lack of jurisdiction. 

It’s not as though alleged rotters are off the hook. The stipes have six months to round them up and start again in NCAT. 

In the meantime, the poor old Public Purpose Fund has taken a battering, because it was stumping up the funds to meet “special circumstance” cost orders in favour of respondents. 

Stewart Levitt’s case went all the way to the High Court, with the Law Society unsuccessful at each stage. 

After the rout of the professional associations, the fund must be down to its last shekels. 

She is representing Darren Gale in an appeal against his convicting for murdering and beheading his housemate in West Ulverstone. He is currently doing 22 years porridge. 

In September Justice Greg had directed Truong to file the correct documents. Instead, on November 20 she came up with something called “draft further and better particulars”. The judge described them as “incomprehensible”, possibly because she was unwilling or unable to grasp the issues. 

“The work you have done falls far short of what is needed to advance this case,” the judge fumed. 

He set a directions date of December 10. Truong wanted December 12, but given the snail-like progress of the appeal this was declined. 

“If they are not attended to by then, there will be consequences,” HH boomed down the two-way speaking device. 

The lawyer said the appeal was a “work in progress”. She is the principle of Mai Lawyers, whose marketing pitch is “Are You in Trouble with the Law? Call Mai Lawyers”. 

In fact, a special feature of her business model is that she will “come to you” – except if you are in Burnie. 

It was only moments ago that Justice Greg himself caused a few raised eyebrows when he handed a nine months prison sentence to a young rapist, having suspended two years and three months jail time for the lad. 

Greg was impressed that the offender had not ejaculated while twice raping his victim and was additionally moved to note that he did not have “any disease”. 

He had a “good upbringing” and fine sporting achievements. The rape was simply the result of an “honest and unreasonable belief as to consent”.