Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Banbrook [2014] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...under s 241(d) that, having been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment (that is under s 58(3) of the Securities Act 1978) the conviction tends to bring his profession into disrepute. [3] Initially the first limb of subs (d) was also pleaded, that is that the conviction reflected on Mr Banbrook’s fitness to practice, but that was abandoned by the Standards Committee, having regard to the High Court decision in Davidson.1 [4] The charge is denied by Mr Banbrook who,...

2. AD v Secretary for Justice 2 April 2012 NZRA 000006 [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...senior counsel since 2006 for offences of aggravated robbery, rape, drugs and serious assaults. She has had active involvement in Category 4 matters the most important and extensive of which was a manslaughter trial which resulted in a guilty plea after the jury had been empanelled and there had been prior extensive legal argument over a day and a half resulting in the Crown making a concession for sentencing purposes. [8] It appears that the applicant sought approval as a Categor...

3. National Standards Committee v Matheson [2015] NZLCDT 4 [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...to simply reflect this charge under s 241(d) and the Standards Committee sought leave to withdraw the second charge of misconduct. [2] There was also an amendment to the particulars or to the form of the charge, in that the conviction is only pleaded as that being one which brings the profession into disrepute, and the “reflection on fitness to practice” limb part of the subsection was withdrawn and so is not before us. On that basis, Mr Matheson has admitted the charge and I...

4. Auckland Standards Committee v Lamborn [2011] NZLCDT 30 [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...charge is not misconduct but slightly lower down the scale of wrongful behaviour therefore should attract a penalty relative to its seriousness. We take account of the responsible approach of Mr Lamborn in reaching a settlement, entering a guilty plea and seeking medical advice. [12] In terms of publication we do not consider Mr Lamborn has displaced the presumption of openness in s.238. We consider privacy of the complainant must be preserved and of the personal details rela...

5. X v B LCRO 11 / 2008 (26 March 2009) [pdf, 16 KB]

   ...delay was addressed as part of the original investigation and decision of the former Complaints Committee. Clients X accept that they did raise delay in their original complaint when they included a complaint that their lawyer had ignored their pleas to “get on with our case”. But it seems that they considered this to be incidental to the other heads of complaint. The second complaint focused solely on the matter of delay, that Lawyer B had failed to “start the case” and �...

6. Auckland Standards Committee v Raheman [2010] NZLCDT 5 [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...commenced at about 9.40 am with Mr Collins representing the Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society and beginning his submissions, but Mr Raheman arrived shortly after that time and so the charges were formally read to him and he has pleaded guilty to both of the charges. [2] He has then had the opportunity to respond to Mr Collins’ submissions and make his plea to the Disciplinary Tribunal for what he refers to as a second chance in this profession. Charges...

7. AR v Secretary of Justice 15 July 2013 NZRA 000004 [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...________________________________________________________________ DECISION ________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION 1. The Applicant applied for temporary approval to act for the appellant in an application to vacate pleas of guilty for a Criminal PC3 matter. The appellant had pleaded guilty to 10 charges while represented by another lawyer. He has asked the Applicant to act for him in his appeal against his conviction. 2. The Secretary...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Dangen [2019] NZLCDT 22 [pdf, 502 KB]

   ...agreed set of particulars was provided to the Tribunal, in support of an amended charge of negligence only. Leave was sought to withdraw the two alternate charges of misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct. Ms Dangen’s counsel indicated a guilty plea to such an amended charge. [5] The Tribunal considered that this was one of those cases which could be seen as fitting within the overlap of culpability levels. In other words, it could have been viewed as either misconduct (not at t...

9. OT v KD [2024] NZDT 49 (15 February 2024) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...house, that KD had entered her property. She had driven home and, after having gone inside her house and re-emerged, found that her vehicle had gone. It was subsequently recovered in [City], in KD’s possession. KD was charged with its theft; he had pleaded guilty in the District Court, and had been ordered to pay OT reparation of $500.00, the value of her insurance excess. [3] OT said that she had bought the vehicle from [car manufacturer]. It was on hire purchase for which she was re...

10. Community Magistrate Position Profile - Auckland - May 2022 [docx, 31 KB]

    ...expands upon that of Justices of the Peace. Community Magistrates have jurisdiction to conduct defended hearings for a wide range of non-imprisonable offences. Community Magistrates can also impose sentences on persons who have been found guilty of or pleaded guilty to certain minor imprisonable offences. Community Magistrates do not have the power to imprison offenders, but they may impose a range of other sentences, such as reparation, community-based sentences (such as community detention o...