6.36 Section 168 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) provides that the rules of evidence apply to proceedings that involve a question of professional misconduct. In all other cases, including those relating only to unsatisfactory professional conduct, the general position under s 73 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW) applies. That is, the Tribunal, subject to
44. S Cuddy, Preliminary Submission at 5.
the rules of natural justice,45 is not bound by the rules of evidence except that the privilege against self incrimination in other proceedings is preserved.46
6.37 In IP 18 the Commission asked whether the rules of evidence should apply to all Tribunal proceedings (Issue 36).
6.38 One submission supported the general application of the rules of evidence on the grounds that a practitioner’s professional reputation and livelihood may be at stake as a result of the proceedings (especially in relation to more serious matters).47
6.39 Others suggested that the rules of evidence should not apply for a number of reasons, including that:
some relevant material may be excluded;48 and
45. Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW) s 73(2).
46. Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW) s 73A, inserted by Administrative Decisions Tribunal Legislation Amendment Act 2000 (NSW) Sch 1[10]. It would appear that the privilege against self incrimination does not apply in relation to disciplinary proceedings that can be classed as protective (rather than punitive), this includes proceedings against doctors and legal practitioners:
Bowen-James v Walton (NSW CA, No 40432/1991, 5 August 1991, unreported) at 11-12.
47. C Wall, Submission at 8.
48. For Legally Abused Citizens Inc, Submission 2 at 6; Medical Consumers Association Inc, Submission at 10.
The Tribunal
the rules of evidence are already not applied in other disciplinary bodies, for example, the Police Tribunal.49
6.40 The Bar Association proposed retaining the current position, namely that the rules of evidence apply only to proceedings that deal with professional misconduct. The Bar Association also proposed that when the rules of evidence apply in Tribunal proceedings, the Tribunal should nonetheless have the power, similar to that in s 82 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), to dispense with the rules of evidence and to direct that admissions be made in respect of questions not bona fide or reasonably in dispute.50 The Court’s power to dispense with the rules of evidence, however, arises only with respect to proof of matters not bona fide in dispute or with respect to such rules as “might cause expense and delay”. It is not clear how this might apply in proceedings before the Tribunal.
6.41 The issue of whether the rules of evidence should apply to all Tribunal proceedings was canvassed extensively in relation to the National Competition Policy Review in 1998. The Review received submissions from the OLSC, the Bar Association and Law Society.
The OLSC submitted that the rules of evidence should not apply to matters before the Tribunal.51 The Bar Association suggested that the application of the rules of evidence be retained subject to some exceptions relating to client legal privilege and confidentiality.52 The Law Society’s position was that “the Tribunal should not be subject to the rules of evidence in any matter”.53 The Report of the National Competition Policy Review merely concluded that
“consideration should be given to removing the distinction in the
49. For Legally Abused Citizens Inc, Submission 2 at 6. According to the Police Service Act 1990 (NSW) s 192(2) of the Royal Commissions Act 1923 (NSW) applies to proceedings before the Police Tribunal.
50. NSW Bar Association, Submission at 55.
51. New South Wales, Attorney General’s Department, National Competition Policy Review of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (Report, 1998) at 53; OLSC Submission to the National Competition Policy Review at 13-14.
52. National Competition Policy Review at 53.
53. National Competition Policy Review at 53.
application of evidentiary rules” without saying which result would be preferred.54
6.42 The distinction between matters involving professional misconduct as opposed to unsatisfactory professional conduct is largely irrelevant in practice, given that most matters are pleaded in the alternative as either professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct.55 The Law Society, in its preliminary submission to this review, said that, given the “nature of the determination of the Tribunal”, it might be “more appropriate for the rules of evidence to be applied in all instances”.56
6.43 It is desirable, for the sake of consistency and to avoid confusion, that the application (or non-application) of the rules of evidence be the same for all matters brought before the Tribunal.
6.44 Because the disciplinary system is concerned with the protection of the public it is important that the Tribunal be able to consider all the evidence that fairly and rationally bears on the question of the conduct of a practitioner. The New South Wales Court of Appeal has had occasion to consider the provisions of the Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW)57 that state that the Medical Tribunal is not bound by the rules governing the admission of evidence. The Court held that:
it is in our view perfectly consistent with concepts of procedural fairness to apply a provision such as in [the Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW)] to admit evidence which may not be legally admissible but which, nonetheless, possesses “rational persuasive power” in respect of an issue material to the proceeding.58
This view was affirmed in another case that also related to very
54. National Competition Policy Review at 56.
55. National Competition Policy Review at 53.
56. Law Society of NSW, Preliminary Submission Issue 1.
57. Sch 2 cl 1.
58. Bowen-James v Walton (NSW CA, No 40432/1991, 5 August 1991, unreported) at 6.
The Tribunal
serious charges of criminal misconduct against a medical practitioner.59 6.45 The only substantive argument put to the Commission in favour of the application of the rules of evidence in disciplinary proceedings is that the outcome of a hearing before the Tribunal can have a serious impact on the professional career of a legal practitioner and that legal practitioners should, therefore, be entitled to the protections offered by the rules of evidence.60 However, as already pointed out, other tribunals and boards that determine the future careers of other professionals and officers are not bound by the rules of evidence. These boards and tribunals include the:
Chiropractors and Osteopaths Tribunal;61
Dental Technicians Registration Board;62
Dental Board;63
Medical Tribunal;64
Nurses Tribunal;65
Pharmacy Board of New South Wales;66
59. Zaidi v Health Care Complaints Commission (1998) 44 NSWLR 82 at 93 (Mason P).
60. A similar argument was put to the High Court in an unsuccessful application for leave to appeal in 1999: Zaidi v Health Care Complaints Commission (High Court of Australia, No S109/1998, 16 April 1999, transcript, unreported). See also the evidence of O’Connor DCJ in Parliament of New South Wales, Report of Proceedings Before Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission Review of Administrative Decisions Tribunal (Sydney, 17 November 2000) at 7.
61. Chiropractors and Osteopaths Act 1991 (NSW) Sch 3 cl 1.
62. Dental Technicians Registration Act 1975 (NSW) s 20(4) which states that the Royal Commissions Act 1923 (NSW) applies to proceedings before the Board.
63. Dentists Act 1989 (NSW) s 46(2) which states that the Royal Commissions Act 1923 (NSW) applies to proceedings before the Board.
64. Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW) Sch 2 cl 1.
65. Nurses Act 1991 (NSW) Sch 2 cl 1.
Podiatrists Registration Board;67
Psychologists Registration Board;68 and
Police Tribunal.69
6.46 There is no valid reason why legal practitioners should be treated any differently to, say, doctors or police officers, given that findings of misconduct against them can be equally harmful to their future careers and earning capacity. There is also the public interest in the adequate investigation of complaints involving possible professional misconduct.
6.47 The Commission, therefore, recommends that the Tribunal should not be bound by the rules of evidence in any proceedings provided the rules of natural justice are followed. The privilege against self incrimination in other proceedings must also be preserved.
6.48 General formulations stating that a tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence include:
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth): “the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks appropriate”.70
The Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW): “In proceedings before it … the Tribunal is not bound to observe the rules of law governing the admission of evidence, but may inform itself of any matter in such manner as it thinks fit”.
66. Pharmacy Act 1964 (NSW) s 19G(1)(e).
67. Podiatrists Act 1989 (NSW) s 15(6).
68. Psychologists Act 1989 (NSW) s 15(6).
69. Police Service Act 1990 (NSW) s 192(2) which states that the Royal Commissions Act 1923 (NSW) applies to proceedings before the Board.
70. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 33(1)(c).
The Tribunal
6.49 Provisions of the type included in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) have the advantage of a body of case law to support them. For example, it would seem that, even without stating it, natural justice applies notwithstanding that a tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence.71 However, other formulations state that natural justice applies. The current provision in relation to hearings before the Tribunal into unsatisfactory professional conduct (as well as to hearings of the ADT generally) includes a proviso that the ADT is subject to the rules of natural justice:
The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice.72
6.50 The general ADT provision is sufficiently similar to the other well established provisions and the express statement that the ADT is “subject to the rules of natural justice” merely states what is already implied. Given that the operation of the Legal Services Division is usually governed by the provisions that relate to the ADT generally, it is desirable that there be as little divergence as possible between the proceedings before the Legal Services Division of the ADT and the other divisions. The application of this general ADT provision can be achieved simply by repealing s 168 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW).
Recommendation 31
Section 168 of the Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) should be repealed so that the Legal Services Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence in any proceedings so long as the rules of natural justice are followed. The privilege against self incrimination in other proceedings must also be preserved.
71. See Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 31 ALR 666 at 690; and M Allars, Introduction to Australian Administrative Law (Butterworths, Sydney, 1990) at para 6.77-6.80.
72. Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW) s 73(2).