Northern Territory Lawyer’s Name Struck from the Roll for Dishonesty

In Law Society Northern Territory v Petersen [2025] NTSC 34 Justice Sonia Brownhill decided that Ms Patricia May Petersen made false representations in her admission application including that she failed to disclose she had attempted to gain admission in Queensland first.

Justice Brownhill held that her deliberate lies and omissions were the antithesis of her obligation of candour to the court in which she desired to serve as an agent of justice.

In addition to her admission being revoked, Ms Petersen’s name was struck from the roll.

The Court referred to a practitioner’s duty of candour and the Legal Profession Act 2006 (NT) (Act) and said:

[32] The duty of candour was dealt with comprehensively by the Full Court of the Supreme Court in Heffernan v Law Society Northern Territory [2023] NTCA 10, particularly at [59]-[67]. 

[33] In summary, that duty requires an applicant for admission as a lawyer to comprehensively disclose any matter which may reasonably be taken to bear on an assessment of fitness for legal practice and applies to each of the suitability matters in s 11(1) of the Act (see below). The duty obliges an applicant for admission to disclose any circumstances which might reasonably be considered to bring a person within one of the suitability matters or otherwise to bear or reflect adversely on an assessment of their fitness.

On 15 April 2020 Ms Petersen filed an originating motion in the Northern Territory Supreme Court seeking admission as a local lawyer with an affidavit in support indicating she had not previously applied for admission.  The Court found however that:

[40] On 6 November 2019, Petersen emailed the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (‘Q Board’) of the Queensland Law Society (‘Q Society’) stating that, in 2015 and 2017, she had ‘disclosed’ to the Q Board that: (a) she had Bipolar II and was symptom free; (b) in 2004, she was charged with ‘being in suspicion of stolen goods’ but the charges were dismissed; and (c) in 2017, she was charged with making threats. She said she intended to apply for admission once the latter charge was finalised and sought confirmation that the Q Board had the information she had disclosed.

[41] On 8 November 2019, upon inquiry by the Q Board, Petersen told the Q Board that these ‘disclosures’ had been made by phone to ‘various people from Admissions’.

[42] On 11 November 2019, the Q Board responded saying that when she applied for admission, Petersen would need to make full and frank disclosure in her application of all suitability matters, including mental health issues.

…

[45] The first statement of eligibility and suitability disclosed various actual or potential suitability matters, namely:

(a) Ten driving offences (speeding and such), six of which Petersen said were committed by her then partner whilst driving her car. 

(b) In 2008, Petersen was charged with obstructing Police, but found not guilty (‘obstructing Police charge’).

(c) In 2015, Petersen was charged with enabling the erection of election signs, found guilty (‘election signs offence’) and then successfully appealed.

(d) In 2019, Petersen was charged with making threats, but found not guilty (‘making threats charge’).

[46] The second statement of eligibility and suitability (marked for the Q Board only) disclosed various further actual or potential suitability matters, namely:

(a) In 2004, Petersen was diagnosed with, and ‘accepted’ that, she had Bipolar II, for which she takes medication and has psychological and psychiatric treatment.

(b) Under the heading ‘Insolvency’, in 1998, Petersen had an accident, suffered physical injuries and mental health issues and could not pay her bills and, in 2005, Petersen had an accident, suffered a physical injury and exacerbation of her mental health issues and could not pay her bills. The annexed National Personal Insolvency Index documents showed Petersen was bankrupt from 2005 to 2008, and was also bankrupt in 1998.

(c) Eight further driving offences, to which Petersen said her Bipolar II condition was relevant.

(d) In 1996, Petersen was charged with making a false statement and imposing on the Commonwealth in relation to an unpaid tax liability. Petersen stated that the magistrate found ‘no evidence of anything of a criminal nature’. The annexed Australian Federal Police Information for Courts document showed that the court result was a discharge without conviction, a repatriation order and a good behaviour bond. It must follow that Petersen was found guilty of the charges (‘imposing on the Commonwealth offences’).

(e) In 1985, Petersen was charged with unlawfully possessing a motor vehicle and speeding in respect of which Petersen pleaded guilty (‘unlawful possession offences’) notwithstanding that the charge arose because she had asked her then boyfriend to return a hire car for her and he did not do so.

(f) In 2004, Petersen was charged with ‘Goods in custody/Make false statement’, driving an unregistered vehicle and being a resident of New South Wales without obtaining a licence in that State (‘goods in custody charges’), and was ordered by the Court to undergo psychiatric treatment. 

Ms Petersen provided further information in relation to her application for admission in Queensland and was cross-examined on her application which she eventually did not pursue further.

[82] Section 11 of the Act defines what are referred to in the Act as ‘suitability matters’. They include:

(a) whether the person is currently of good fame and character;

(b) whether the person is or has been an insolvent under administration;

(c) whether the person has been convicted of an offence in Australia and, if so:

(i) the nature of the offence;

(ii) how long ago the offence was committed; and

(iii) the person’s age when the offence was committed;

(d) whether the person is currently subject to an unresolved complaint, investigation, charge or order under the Act or a corresponding law;

(e) whether the person currently has a material inability to engage in legal practice.

…

[244] The Society argued that Petersen made the fresh application for admission in the Territory to avoid the difficulties that had followed her disclosures in Queensland of the admitted suitability matters (other than the Nolan decision), which she sought to achieve by filing the 15 April Affidavit that omitted reference to all of those matters and denied that she had applied for admission elsewhere.

[245] This, unlike the reasons given by Petersen referred to above, is an explanation for the Territory admission which is plausible and makes sense. It explains why Petersen would make a second unnecessary application for admission when one was already on foot.

Ultimately the Court found that Ms Petersen made deliberately false representations.  The Court was also satisfied, on the balance of probabilities to the Briginshaw standard, that Ms Petersen lacked the competence, temperament and character to perform the duties of the office of a lawyer appropriately, competently and effectively and said:

[313] Given my findings about Petersen’s deliberately dishonest conduct, I agree with the Society’s submissions. Applicants for admission as a lawyer must be honest and completely candid in their applications. As the Queensland Court of Appeal observed in Scott, it is critical that all practitioners understand that the burden of full and frank disclosure is extremely onerous and must be met in full and with all necessary particulars, regardless of an individual applicant’s circumstances. 

The decision can be read in full here.