Blackfella Stoned

The rich repository of Justinian's archive helps us remember NT lawyer and politician Shane Stone's brush with the stipes ... The Bob Liddle affair ... Ducking and weaving over finding of unprofessional conduct ... Client's matrimonial file injected into the political fray ... Déjà Vu from June 1995
 
Stone: stressed and anxious over conduct findingsWhat a joy to see another solicitor take up high political office. We need more of them guiding the tiller of state and we need more of the ilk of Shane Stone, the new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory.


Australia is now blessed with a Premier Wayne and a Chief Minister Shane – both of whom are well credentialled lawyers.

In the finest traditions of the Northern Territory, he's managed to shrug off a little incident involving unprofessional conduct, which would have thrown lesser types off their stride.

I refer here to the Bob Liddle affair.

In 1989, Stoney was President of the Country-Liberal Party, and practising law in Darwin and Alice Springs. On the agenda of the party's central council meeting in October of that year was the suitability of the candidate the party had preselected for the Territory's one House of Representatives seat. The candidate was an Aboriginal mining consultant, Bob Liddle. 

Rumours were circulating in Alice Springs about Liddle's matrimonial problems. Stoney had been an agent on behalf of Melbourne solicitors acting for Liddle in relation to certain matrimonial matters. 

Two days before the party meeting Stone wrote to Liddle seeking his authority for confidential information on his matrimonial affairs to be made available to CLP members at the meeting. No authority was given.

In any event, Liddle was dumped as the CLP's candidate for the House of Representatives. He subsequently made a complaint against Shane to the NT Law Society. It went to the Ethics Committee which found that Shane had misused his position as Liddle's former solicitor.

He had taken Liddle's matrimonial file to the central council meeting of the CLP and placed it on the front table, among a bundle of other files and papers.

The Ethics Committee found that Stone did not have Liddle's express authority to take the file to the meeting. It was not shown that anything from the file was revealed, but the committee said that the file's presence had put Liddle "under undue and unfair pressure" at the meeting.

The committee concluded that the complaint had been proved and that Stone's conduct was unprofessional.

Stone had failed "to give undivided fidelity to his client's interests", and had breached the Law Society's Professional Conduct Rules concerning conflict of interest. 

The committee went on to decide that this conduct was wilful, with reckless disregard for Liddle's interests as a client, and that Stone was also guilty of the more serious offence of professional misconduct. It recommended he be fined a crippling $1,000.

The finding and recommendations were adopted by the Law Society.

Stone responded by seeking to have the society's decision quashed by the Supreme Court. He argued that he had been denied natural justice and the Law Society did not have the power to make the decisions in the first place.

Justice Brian Martin did the quashing. He decided that the finding of professional misconduct was invalid because the nature and degree of penalty imposed on a professional person could have a bearing on that person's professional reputation, and that the Law Society had failed to render natural justice in respect of the penalty. 

Martini also found a shocking technical error - that the Professional Conduct Rules of the Law Society had never been approved by the CJ as was required by the Legal Practitioners Act. 

All matters were sent back to the Law Society for further consideration. 

However, the judge said there was no reason to interfere with the finding of unprofessional conduct. 

Right-thinking readers must be relieved to know that it is possible to take a confidential file on a client's matrimonial affairs into a political meeting and leave it lying around, for a political purpose - and not be found guilty of professional misconduct. 

The matters were considered again by the Law Society in December 1992. The finding of unprofessional conduct stood, but the fine was reduced to $750. It has to be assumed that the society rescinded its finding of professional misconduct. 

Two weeks later, in a Cabinet reshuffle, Shane Stone was appointed Attorney General. It was gratifying for all concerned that someone with a sense of propriety should take on the leadership of the profession at this challenging time. 

But the matter did not end there. Shaney lodged an appeal against the Law Society's finding of unprofessional conduct, but then withdrew it. He stood aside as Attorney General the following April, while a fellow government minister, acting as Attorney General, made up his mind not to refer Stone's dealings with Liddle to a judicial hearing.

Stone was again sworn in as Attorney General. 

In April 1993, there were exciting new developments. It was revealed that an executive of western Mining Corporations, Ray Evans, had made a written statement the previous December alleging that in 1989 Stone had spoken to him about Bob Liddle's private matrimonial matters. 

Stone denied any breach of confidence and Evans subsequently wrote apologising, saying that he'd since been made aware of other factors "which could have caused [him] not to have written the September statement in its current form". 

Later that month, Liddle laid two complaints with the Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee, alleging breaches of client confidentiality, in that Stone had discussed aspects of his personal affairs, including his maintenance payments, with a businessman in 1989. 

The Labor Party managed to point out that under the Legal Practitioners Act Shane had the power to appoint and dismiss members of the Complaints Committee who would be hearing the case against him.

Again he stood aside as Attorney General.

Stone submitted at a preliminary hearing of he committee that the complaints were vexatious, and that Liddle had filed them too long after the alleged events had taken place. Also, he said the whole thing had caused him and his family stress and anxiety. 

The committee found that the complaints had been lodged in time, and that they were not vexatious. It was ready to deliberate on the substantive issues. 

Stone again went back to the Supreme Court, lodging an appeal against the committee's preliminary decision.

Those complaints have never been heard, even though the Complaints Committee continued to list the matter regularly for mention. The Supreme Court appeal was never listed for hearing. 

I'm advised that the matter was settled out of court last year. The terms of the settlement have never been disclosed, but Bob Liddle said some years ago that he would have settled then for $10,000 and a public apology from Stone. 

There has never been an apology. 

Shane also commenced defamation proceedings against the ABC in Darwin in relation to a broadcast that mistakenly said he had been found guilty of professional misconduct. That too has been settled. 

Isn't the NT fortunate to have such a little ripper of a Chief Minister.

[Stone when on to become national president of the Liberal Party.]