Canberra man with alcohol struggle admitted to the jam roll with conditions attached … Concern that delay in his admission would adversely affect him financially … Justice Betty King lets fly at Victorian authorities for dragging the chain in the case of a Ponzi fraudster … Victims left in the cold … Emilie Lentz reports 

A LAW student who had a serious alcohol problem has been admitted as a lawyer in the ACT, with strict conditions attached to his ticket. Delaying his admission was held to disadvantage him financially. 

ACT Chief Justice Helen Murrell and Justices Richard Refshauge and John Burns, scrutinised whether the applicant, L, was a “fit and proper” person to be admitted as a solicitor after his significant and ongoing alcohol abuse came to light. 

L was arrested for public intoxication twice in 2010 and 2011 and once in 2012. He had also been convicted of a high-range drink driving offences in January 2011 and in February 2013. 

L had sought professional help for his alcohol problem, attending six sessions with clinical psychologist Dr Victoria Carr from March 22, 2013. After the completion of these sessions, L was again arrested in relation to another incident of public intoxication. 

The court considered the context of this most recent drinking episode to be relevant. After six months of abstinence from alcohol, with the guidance of Dr Carr, L had fallen off the wagon. 

Rewarding himself for his hard work in his studies, he went to a birthday party in the city and arranged to spend the night at a friend’s place afterwards. 

Becoming separated from his friend and unable to contact him by phone, due to his high level of intoxication, L ended up sleeping on a park bench until woken and directed to move on by the police. 

With no place to go and being unable to contact his mother to pick him up, L was taken into police protection.

L’s troubled upbringing, fairly lonely existence, failed engagement to a fellow student, as well as his diligence in his studies, were all taken into account as mitigation for his lapses. 

Academic referees attested to L’s intelligence, diligence and promise and Doc Carr confirmed an absence of mental illnesses or disorders, and the seriousness with which he considered his obligations in the law trade.

In deciding whether L was fit and proper, the court said that personal misconduct was a relevant consideration. Additionally, abuse of drugs had to be taken seriously. 

On the other hand, L had displayed candour and honesty, and delay in admitting him to the roll would affect him financially. Postponing his admission was considered inappropriate in light of L’s reform and the mechanisms that could be put in place in order to prevent a relapse.

The court ordered that L be conditionally admitted. The conditions included a consultation with the doctor within 14 days of admission and thereafter ever three months for the next year, or more frequently if recommended by Dr Carr. 

L was also required to authorise his doctor to report to the Law Society of the ACT on his progress and the risks of relapse. 

He was also ordered not to apply for admission in any other jurisdiction without giving the relevant authority a copy of these conditions. 

Finally, a copy of the conditions should be provided to any employer. 

VICTORIAN country solicitor Alan Munt was sentenced by Justice Betty King to eight-and-a-half years porridge in relation to 27 charges connected to his operation of a Ponzi scheme, with a minimum time to serve of five-and-a-half years. 

Munt was found to have defrauded 16 people of $4,819,061.90.

As an undischarged bankrupt, no restitution has been made to Munt’s victims, nor is there any prospect of restitution in the future. 

The only compensation received by victims was $1,477,717.88 apportioned to 15 people from the fidelity fund. This compensation was in relation to only five of the 27 charges.

Munt pleaded guilty to all charges, and it was found that he had been cooperative with investigators from the first instance his crimes came to light. 

Justice King considered this in deciding to imposed an eight-and-a-half year sentence rather than a period of ten-and-a-half years.

Even so, the court condemned Munt’s behavior as being, “appalling … predatory, manipulative and scheming”. 

His conduct was particularly condemned in light of his position of high standing in the community and the trust vested in him by those he defrauded. 

Munt was president of the Victoria Hockey Association for five years, chairman of Hockey Victoria, involved in the Rotary Club of Monbulk, serving as president for a year as well as having been an active anti-Vietnam war campaigner.

Munt’s conduct caused distress to the elderly and frail of the Sylvan Glades retirement village, for which he was lawyer and treasurer. 

The financial loss caused one victim to lose their independence and to “rely on family members to provide a stable roof over [their] head”. Funds acquired were used to support his practice and make himself appear a successful solicitor. 

Munt was running a Ponzi scheme from money provided by mortgage clients. The funds were going to finance the solicitor’s practice and living expenses as well as helping to capitalise Noddy’s Soft Drinks, in which he had an interest. 

Betty King condemned the Victorian Police for their slack approach to the investigation of this serious criminal behavior. Even though Munt cooperated and confessed his conduct when it first coming to light in 2012, due to the persistent refusal of police to investigate as well as the inefficiencies of the Legal Services Board, Munt was not charged until 2014, when the OPP urged the police to pursue the matter. 

At that point, the efforts of the police were confined to gathering a statement, factually similar to information already disclosed by Munt in 2012. 

The delays and inability of the police to make any progress with the case caused it to be outsourced to a private investigator.

Since Munt’s offending came to light, he has become estranged from his wife had seen his three children only occasionally.