© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] QCA 556
Court of Appeal (Qld)
2001-12-07
de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mackenzie JSeparate reasons for judgment of, each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
Original judgment source is linked above.
Text from the judgment source.
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Barristers' Board v Young [2001] QCA 556
PARTIES:
BARRISTERS' BOARD
(applicant)
v
TARA VIRGINIA YOUNG
(respondent)
FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 8646 of 2001
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Disciplinary Proceedings
DELIVERED ON:
7 December 2001
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
6 November 2001
JUDGES:
de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:
Order that the name of Tara Virginia Young be removed from the roll of barristers admitted to practise within the State of Queensland.
CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - LAWYERS - REMOVAL OF NAME FROM ROLL - application for removal of respondent from Barristers' Roll on ground that she knowingly gave false evidence on oath before CJC Inquiry - duties and necessary attributes of barristers - where respondent also failed to acknowledge the significance of her default - consideration of psychiatric report - relevance of references where inquiry is as to intrinsic character
Attorney-General v Bax [1999] 2 QdR 9, cited
Barristers' Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253, Appeal No 2107 of 2000, 30 June 2000, considered
Clyne v New South Wales Bar Association [1960] HCA 40; (1960) 104 CLR 186, cited
In re Davis [1947] HCA 53; (1947) 75 CLR 409, considered
Janus v Queensland Law Society [2001] QCA 180, Appeal No 9202 of 2000, 15 May 2001, cited
New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins [2001] NSWCA 284, cited
Re A Practitioner (1984) 36 SASR 590, considered
Re Bell Full Court Motion 622 of 1991, 6 December 1991, considered
Re Morrison [1961] QdR 343, cited
Re Thomas [1984] 2 QdR 460, cited
Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales [1957] HCA 46; (1957) 97 CLR 279, considered
COUNSEL:
JK Bond SC, with DA Kelly for the applicant
MJ Byrne QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Hemming & Hart for the applicant
Bernard Bradley & Associates for the respondent
Barristers' Board
Young [2001] QCA 556
(1960) 104 CLR 186
(1947) 75 CLR 409
(1984) 36 SASR 590
(1957) 97 CLR 279