Barrister with personality issues … Plying the trade while unticketed … Multiple breaches … Nose thumbed at authority of the court … Criminal contempt … Janek Drevikovsky reports
When the Bar Council launched proceedings, he apologised to a judge, admitted he was in contempt, promised to stop – and then went to work six days later, sending letters to the High Court.
For “deliberately and repeatedly” defying the court, Rollinson is now staring down nine months’ porridge, which will be suspended only if he can abstain from barristering.
Head honcho at common law Robert Beech-Jones passed the sentence last week, describing Rollinson’s behaviour as “breathtaking and flagrant” and declaring him in contempt.
The brief’s sorry string of uncertified deeds began in mid-2021.
For his first two decades at the bar, Rollinson “usually made enough to live on”. But the pandemic sucked his stream of interlocutory work so dry that, when it was time to renew, he was out of cash.
In emails with the Bar Council, he promised not to practise until he’d stumped up; at the Council’s behest, he repeated this undertaking to Supreme Court judge Richard Button.
But Rollinson felt he would let down his clients and solicitors if he stopped work. So four days after giving his word, he filed submissions in Stanizzo v Fregnan. This was the first count of contempt.
The Council swiftly took out an injunction with Justice Helen Wilson, barring further lawyering. It had no effect. Rollinson kept on emailing submissions, using his chambers’ email address and signing as “counsel”.
He appeared in person at least once, before the common law registrar, and even endorsed a special leave application in the Stanizzo matter.
Breaching this injunction was Rollinson’s second contempt.
Catching wind of his unlicensed activities, the Council obtained yet another injunction, this time from Justice Stephen Campbell.
The injunction specifically banned Rollinson from appearing in the Wollongong Local Court, where the Bar Council knew he was itching to litigate one of his cases, Vinja Holdings v Style Investments.
This third breach spurred the Council to bring contempt proceedings. To the three charges, Rollinson pleaded guilty, and swore an affidavit in early February 2022, trying to explain his behaviour:
“I thought that I could sort out the problem by applying for and obtaining a fresh practising certificate and I would then deal with any disciplinary ramifications.
“I also did not want my predicament of not having a practising certificate to get more publicity than it had to because I found it embarrassing.”
This “astonishing letter”, though not part of the contempt charges, meant that Rollinson’s apologies counted for little, Justice Beech-Jones found.
In sentencing, his Honour held that Rollinson’s actions were wilful and deliberate, which turned what would be “civil contempt” into criminal conduct.
The early guilty plea and a glowing character reference from Mark Robinson SC counted for something. So too did a psychological report, which diagnosed Rollinson with “schizoid personality disorder”, worsening memory and “interpersonal isolation”.
But since Rollinson was an officer of the court, his defiance of judge-made orders was unforgivable. There were also signs Rollinson had become “obsessive” about his cases, Beech-Jones J said, and it was important to deter further unticketed work.
HH concluded:
“Ultimately, I am satisfied that the attack on the authority of the Court demonstrated by the contemnor’s conduct is so grave that a term of imprisonment must be imposed.”
The sentence was nine months, suspended for three years, and to come in effect if Rollinson tries to ply his trade again. This was a “significant incentive” for compliance, his Honour said.
HH made no order banning Rollinson from re-applying for his ticket. But he thought there was no chance the Council would let him back onto the caper, saying:
“I regard it as almost a virtual certainty that either by way of being refused a practising certificate or removed from the roll of practitioners (or both) the contemnor will not (lawfully) practice again.”