Former politician struck off after applying for a ticket … Plundering the funds of the Health Services Union to pay for hookers and campaign expenses … Prolonged dishonesty for personal gain … Character remains unreformed … Nick Bonyhady reports 

On October 11, 2016, having left parliament in disgrace in 2013, Thomson applied for a practicing certificate from the Law Society of New South Wales. In his application, he claimed he was a “person of good character and a fit and proper person that can honourably conduct himself as a solicitor if given that opportunity”.

As for his past convictions, Thomson said that they ought to be weighed against the “fact” that he had “largely spent a lifetime in honourable public service”.

Thomson was first admitted as a lawyer in 1995 but never practised. 

It took eight days for the Law Society to tell Thomson that it did not intend to issue him with a ticket. However, Thomson’s application seems to have reminded the Prothonotary that he was still on the roll.

In March 2018 the Prothonotary told Thomson that he was likely to be struck off in March 2018, information the former Labor politician took it well. He wrote to the court saying:

“I do not intend to make any statement in this matter. I am not contesting the application and will not be appearing for health and financial reasons that saw me not contest the [Fair Work] application in the civil matter referred to in these proceedings.

I accept the position of the Law Society of NSW and do not wish to incur costs to anyone for this matter which is why I volunteered to undertake not to apply for a practice certificate for such time as the Law Society saw fit.”

Thomson’s response was just as well. Appended to the Supreme Court’s judgment is a long list of the money that Thomson took from the HSU, some of which was used to pay Labor campaign expenses and hookers. 

In a unanimous judgment, Justices Basten, Meagher and Simpson found that Thomson had not fully paid numerous judgment debts.  

The judges also noted that he had neglected to properly disclose proceedings against him under the Workplace Relations Act related to his time at the HSU when he applied for a practicing certificate.

“Mr Thomson’s conduct involved,” their Honours said, “significant and prolonged dishonesty for personal gain”.

“Mr Thomson has not suggested that the deficiencies of character revealed by that conduct are shown no longer to be present and that he has undergone a reformation of character sufficient to justify the conclusion that he is presently a fit and proper person.” 

The Court of Appeal also criticised Thomson’s attempts to explain his conduct, “none of which included a candid and comprehensive disclosure of, or explanation for, the misconduct outlined above”.

Despite not opposing the Prothonotary’s application, Thomson will still have to pay costs for the successful application to strike him off. 

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Thomson