[1] Mr Henaghan was admitted to the legal profession in New Zealand in 1981. Then he became admitted in Victoria in 1985 and in New South Wales in 1997. He held an unrestricted practising certificate from 2011 to 2021, and then an unrestricted employee practising certificate from September 2021 until February 2022. Then, for the reasons that follow, Mr Henaghan's practising certificate was cancelled.
[2] On 19 April 2022, Mr Henaghan was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years, suspended after 20 months, for maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. The offending conduct had occurred a decade previously, from March 2012 to March 2014. The complainant was between 9 and 12 years at the time of the offences. Mr Henaghan was between 53 and 55 years old.
[3] The sentencing remarks of Judge Holliday in the District Court at Southport explain the circumstances of the offending. Mr Henaghan was related to the complainant. He breached the trust of the complainant as well as her family.
[4] Mr Henaghan has served his term of imprisonment and has returned to New Zealand.
[5] At the first directions hearing, Mr Henaghan confirmed that he accepted and admitted the conduct the subject of the disciplinary charge. He said he did not intend to take any part in the proceeding. He said that:
[3]
(a) he should be struck off the roll;
(b) the conduct the subject of the charge amounts to professional misconduct; and
(c) the appropriate order is to recommend that Mr Henaghan's name be removed from the roll pursuant to s 456(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).
[4]
[6] Notwithstanding those admissions and acceptance of the position, the tribunal must be satisfied that the allegations the subject of the charge have been proved to the requisite standard and determine the appropriate characterisation and sanction for itself.
[7] There is proof of the allegations the subject of the charge. The disgraceful conduct is described in detail in the sentencing remarks of Holliday DCJ. In a directions hearing before the tribunal, Mr Henaghan confirmed that between 1 March 2012 and 31 March 2014 he maintained a sexual relationship with the complainant/child whilst residing in Queensland. He confirmed that the complainant was aged between 9 and 12 at the time of his offending. Mr Henaghan confirmed and accepted that he was guilty of a serious offence and that he was not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll. He confirmed that his conduct amounted to professional misconduct and that the appropriate order is a recommendation that his name be struck off the roll.
[8] Mr Henaghan's conduct constitutes professional misconduct. As Thomas J said in Adamson v Queensland Law Society Inc(1990) 1 Qd R 498 at 507:
[5]
"The test to be applied is whether the conduct violates or falls short of, to a substantial degree, the standard of professional conduct observed or approved by members of the profession of good repute and competency."
[6]
[9] The conduct here comfortably satisfies that test. The LSC referred the tribunal to three other similar cases: Legal Services Commissioner v Desacola[2023] QCAT 271; Law Society of South Australia v Rodda[2002] SASC 274 and Legal Services Commissioner v Randall[2019] QCAT 217. Each shows that this type of conduct means that clients cannot trust the practitioner, that such a practitioner cannot command the respect of clients, and that public trust and confidence in the profession would be undermined by such a practitioner remaining a member of the profession.
[10] The conduct here is far more sustained and serious than those three cases.
[11] The tribunal is satisfied the conduct is professional misconduct.
[12] The appropriate sanction is an order recommending the removal of Mr Henaghan's name from the roll. His conduct demonstrates that he is not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll at the time of this hearing. And the probability is that he is permanently unfit to practice.
A disciplinary body must make an order requiring a person whom it has found to have engaged in prescribed conduct to pay costs, including costs of the commissioner and the complainant, unless the disciplinary body is satisfied exceptional circumstances exist.
[8]
[14] There are no exceptional circumstances here. Mr Henaghan should pay the costs.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Legal Services Commissioner
Respondent/Defendant:
Henaghan [2025] QCAT 258
Legislation Cited (1)
Profession Act 2007
Cases Cited (4)
Law Society of South Australia v Rodda[2002] SASC 274, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Desacola[2023] QCAT 271, cited