//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2025] NSWCA 77
plaintiff. The Court declared Alina Yousif not fit and proper to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers, ordered her name removed, and ordered her to pay the applicant's costs ([58]).
The Court of Appeal ordered solicitor Alina Yousif's name removed from the Roll after finding she was likely to remain unfit to practise for the indefinite future. The Court considered her serious criminal convictions, including offences involving dishonesty, and found she had given false evidence at trial and in the removal proceedings. It was not satisfied that she had demonstrated adequate insight or rehabilitation. The Court's focus was protection of the public and confidence in the legal profession, not further punishment.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,157 words · generated 06/10/2026
The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales asked the Court of Appeal to declare that Alina Yousif was not fit and proper to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers and to order that her name be removed. The Court made both orders and ordered Yousif to pay the applicant's costs ([1], [58]).
6 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
Yousif was admitted as a solicitor in February 2016. In 2017, she was in a relationship with Clinton Parkinson, who had connections with the Bandidos Motorcycle Club and a history of serious criminal offending ([2]-[3], [7]). The events underlying the application occurred in November 2017. The first two offences related to a plan involving a false Indian driving licence and a false letter of authenticity, used in an attempt to obtain an unrestricted motorcycle licence for Danny Kearney. Yousif attended Service NSW with Kearney and sought to have the letter treated as a true copy in her capacity as a Justice of the Peace ([12]-[14]).
The third offence concerned the supply of methylamphetamine. Surveillance recorded Yousif counting money and discussing whether she should contribute a further $2,000. In the Court's view, the recorded conversation showed she knew the money was connected with the purchase of drugs ([17], [52], [56]).
Yousif was convicted of participating in a criminal group, using a false document with the required intention, and knowingly taking part in the supply of 55.5 grams of methylamphetamine ([1]). She received an aggregate three-year sentence served by an intensive correction order. She completed the 400 hours of community service in February 2023, and her sentence expired on 24 June 2023 ([37], [41]).
In the removal proceedings, Yousif accepted that she had not been fit and proper at the time of the offending, but argued that she had since rehabilitated. She relied on the passage of time, her work and community activities, counselling, and the effects of an abusive relationship. The Court accepted that the relationship was abusive, but did not accept that it was the primary reason for her offending. More centrally, the Court found that her evidence about material events was not truthful and that she had not developed adequate insight ([46]-[57]).
The Court began with the purpose and test for removal. Its jurisdiction is preserved by ss 23(1) and 264 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) ([42]). The question was whether Yousif was fit and proper to remain on the Roll, assessed at the time of the hearing ([43]). The Court had to decide whether she was likely to be unfit for the indefinite future. That does not mean that unfitness must be permanent. It means that it is not apparent whether, or when, the practitioner might become suitable for reinstatement ([43]).
The jurisdiction is protective rather than punitive. It protects the public and public confidence in the profession ([43]). The Court drew on New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins, where the importance of honesty and integrity in legal practice was explained by reference to clients, fellow practitioners, courts and the public ([44]). The judgment states that serious dishonesty will normally make removal appropriate because honesty is central to a lawyer's responsibilities ([44]).
The Court treated the offences as serious and rejected an isolated or narrow view of them. It found the two dishonesty offences involved planning and a deliberate attempt to mislead a public official ([48]). The recorded conversation about repairing and presenting the letter, and what to say about its damage, supported the Court's conclusion that Yousif was involved in planning the deception, rather than merely following instructions ([13], [49], [52]).
The Court acknowledged the abusive relationship. It accepted that Yousif might have wanted to appease Parkinson to limit abuse. But it did not accept that the relationship was the primary reason for the offences. The Court's reading of the recorded conversations and of Yousif's conduct at Service NSW was that she was a willing participant. In relation to the drug offence, the Court noted that Yousif herself offered to contribute money, although Parkinson declined the offer ([49]-[50]).
The Court also assessed the weight of the psychological evidence. It gave little weight to the psychologist's opinion about PTSD and its relevance to the offences, because the report did not address the specific conduct and was based entirely on Yousif's account ([51]). This was not a finding that psychological evidence was irrelevant in principle. It was an assessment of the report before the Court.
A decisive issue was credibility. The Court found that Yousif had given false evidence at her criminal trial about knowing the letter was forged and about how it had been damaged. It also found that the recorded conversations made her account of the letter's damage implausible ([52], [55]). Regarding the drug offence, the Court found it implausible that she did not know that the money she counted and offered to supplement would be used to purchase drugs ([52], [56]).
The Court expressly addressed its ability to assess her evidence independently. It said there was no constraint on making its own findings about her credit and relying on them in deciding the application ([53]). It did not need to determine whether she had lied about being a JP, because other findings were sufficient to resolve the case ([54]).
Finally, the Court considered whether Yousif had demonstrated rehabilitation. It concluded that her answers showed she had not fully accepted the respects in which her conduct involved serious criminal offences, including offences of dishonesty. It also regarded her stated reason for delaying further psychological help as relevant to its assessment of her attitude and insight ([57]). The Court concluded that it was not possible to say with confidence if or when her fitness would change. That supported a finding of likely unfitness for the indefinite future ([57]).
The judgment does not announce a new statutory test or state that it changes the law. It applies principles drawn from earlier High Court and New South Wales decisions.
The legal framework set out at [42]-[45] includes four points. First, the Court's inherent removal power is preserved by the Uniform Law ([42]). Second, fitness is assessed at the hearing, rather than fixed by the practitioner's fitness or unfitness at the time of the conduct ([43]). Third, the relevant future period is indefinite, not necessarily permanent. The test asks whether it is apparent whether, and when, reinstatement might become suitable ([43]). Fourth, although the applicant carries the civil burden to prove likely unfitness for the indefinite future, a practitioner relying on rehabilitation has an evidentiary onus once misconduct is demonstrated ([45]).
The judgment connects the protective character of the jurisdiction to the importance of professional honesty. It relies on Cummins for the professional and public interests that depend on integrity ([44]). It also refers to Green, Gregory and Croke in stating the protective purpose and the normal significance of serious dishonesty ([43]-[44]). The decision applies these principles to criminal offending outside the direct conduct of legal practice. The Court did not treat the fact that the offences occurred outside Yousif's professional work as removing their significance. Rather, it assessed what the offending and the subsequent evidence showed about her present fitness ([46], [48]-[57]).
The practical application is important: completion of a sentence, passage of time, employment and community involvement were among the matters advanced in support of rehabilitation, but did not resolve the inquiry. The Court's decision turned substantially on its assessment of the underlying conduct, the false evidence, and the state of Yousif's insight at the hearing ([46], [52]-[57]). The judgment does not say that any one factor automatically determines a removal application.
At [43], the Court states: “The jurisdiction is protective, not punitive. Its purpose is protection of the public and its confidence in the legal profession.” In plain English, removal is not an additional sentence for past wrongdoing. The question is whether continued membership of the profession is consistent with protecting the public and maintaining confidence in lawyers.
Also at [43], the Court explains that “it not be apparent whether, and if so when, the practitioner might be suitable for reinstatement to the roll.” In plain English, “indefinite” unfitness does not require proof that the person will never be fit again. It is enough that the timing or prospect of renewed suitability cannot be identified.
At [44], the judgment states that serious dishonesty will normally warrant removal because honesty goes to the heart of a practitioner's professional responsibilities. The quoted passage from Cummins describes the reliance clients, colleagues, courts and the public place on lawyers. The Court used that principle to explain why dishonesty bears directly on fitness, even when the conduct is not part of the lawyer's legal work.
At [53], the Court says: “There is no constraint on the Court making its own findings as to her credit and relying upon those findings in disposing of the application before it.” In plain English, the Court was not confined to the fact of the convictions or to Yousif's description of her rehabilitation. It could assess her evidence in the removal hearing and use its own credibility findings.
At [57], the Court concludes that Yousif remained willing to say and do what would achieve immediate goals without sufficient concern for what was right, and that “[i]t is not possible to say with any confidence if and when the position will change.” That conclusion links the Court's credibility and insight findings to its assessment of future fitness.
The decision is most directly relevant where a legal practitioner has committed serious criminal conduct involving dishonesty and a court must decide whether the practitioner remains fit to be on the Roll. The judgment particularly concerns a combination of deliberate deception of a public official, drug-related offending, and later false evidence about the offences ([48]-[57]).
It also addresses applications in which the practitioner accepts past unfitness but relies on rehabilitation. The Court considered claimed insight, treatment, employment, community participation, elapsed time and personal circumstances, while applying the principle that the evidentiary onus concerning rehabilitation shifts to the practitioner once misconduct is demonstrated ([45]-[46]).
The case does not establish that every criminal conviction, every dishonest act, or every unsuccessful rehabilitation claim must result in removal. Its stated conclusion arose from the full combination of serious offending, the Court's findings about participation and dishonesty, false evidence, inadequate insight, and the inability to identify whether or when fitness might change ([48]-[57]). A lawyer assessing another matter would need to compare its evidence and circumstances with those findings, rather than treating the result as automatic.
The judgment is dated 23 April 2025. The materials supplied do not include decisions of later courts considering or applying Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yousif. Its subsequent treatment therefore cannot be established from the text provided.
The judgment itself identifies its own use of earlier authorities. It applies Cummins to the significance of professional honesty ([44]) and applies de Robillard and Stanoevski to the burden and evidentiary onus concerning indefinite unfitness and rehabilitation ([45]). It cites A Solicitor, Livanes, Zhukovska, Hansen and Prothonotary v 'A' on the timing and meaning of the fitness inquiry ([43]). It also refers to Smith v NSW Bar Association when explaining the Court's ability to make its own credit findings ([53]). Those relationships describe how this Court used earlier decisions, not how later courts have treated Yousif.
The Court left one factual issue expressly unresolved: whether Yousif knew she was not a JP when she told the Service NSW employee that she was. It said her evidence was confused or contradictory and that it seemed unlikely a solicitor would not know the distinction, but did not reach a concluded view because it was unnecessary to do so ([54]).
The judgment also does not decide what evidence, in a different case, would be sufficient to establish rehabilitation after serious dishonesty. It assesses the evidence before it, including the psychologist's report, Yousif's evidence, and the Court's findings about insight ([51]-[57]). Nor does it set a fixed time period after which reinstatement becomes appropriate. The test it states is whether it is apparent whether, and when, the practitioner might be suitable for reinstatement ([43]).
The effect of an abusive relationship on a removal application is not comprehensively defined. The Court accepted the relationship was abusive but rejected, on the evidence before it, the claim that it was the primary reason for the offending ([49]). Its reasoning should therefore be read as an assessment of this record, not as a general rule about how coercion or abuse must be weighed in every matter.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yousif [2025] NSWCA 77
Hearing dates: 24 March 2025
Date of orders: 23 April 2025
Decision date: 23 April 2025
Before: Ward ACJ, Ball JA, Basten AJA
Decision: (1) Declare that Alina Yousif is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers maintained by the Court under s 22 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (the Roll).
(2) Order that the name Alina Yousif be removed from the Roll.
(3) Order that Alina Yousif pay the applicant's costs of, and incidental to, these proceedings.
Catchwords: LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – disciplinary proceedings against solicitor – whether Respondent a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers – where Respondent convicted of participating in a criminal group, using a false document with the intention of inducing a person to accept as genuine and then to influence that person to exercise a public duty, and knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug – where Respondent served sentence by way of intensive correction order (ICO) – where ICO has expired – where Respondent opposes relief sought – whether Respondent likely to be unfit for the indefinite future – Court satisfied of unfitness to practice for the indefinite future
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 93T, 245
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985(NSW), s 25
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), ss 22, 23, 264
Cases Cited: A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (2004) 216 CLR 253; [2004] HCA 1
Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Croke [2024] NSWCA 195
Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Green [2022] NSWCA 257
Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Zhukovska (2020) 102 NSWLR 655; [2020] NSWCA 163
de Robillard v Council of the New South Wales Bar Association; Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v de Robillard (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 299
New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v ‘A’ (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWCA 258
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Gregory [2017] NSWCA 101
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Hansen [2023] NSWCA 189
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Livanes [2012] NSWCA 325
R v Parkinson [2010] NSWCCA 89
Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409; [1947] HCA 53
Smith v NSW Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256; [1992] HCA 36
Stanoevski v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 93
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Applicant)
Alina Yousif (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
K Curry (Applicant)
P Griffin SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor (Applicant)
Pope & Spinks (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/424676
Publication restriction: Nil
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
Ms Alina Yousif, the respondent in these proceedings, was admitted as a solicitor of New South Wales in February 2016. In late 2016, Ms Yousif began working as a junior solicitor at the Aboriginal Legal Service in Griffith. Shortly after moving to Griffith, Ms Yousif started a relationship with Mr Clinton Parkinson. Mr Parkinson had recently been released on parole and moved to a place in North Albury. Mr Parkinson had connections with the Bandidos Motorcycle Club (Bandidos) and had been in custody for several years after being convicted of supplying methylamphetamine in a commercial quantity and of two firearm related offences
By August 2017, NSW Police had commenced an investigation into Mr Parkinson and for the purposes of that investigation lawfully intercepted telephone calls and text messages for his mobile telephone services and installed surveillance devices at his residence in North Albury.
Based on information the police had gathered from their investigation into Mr Parkinson, on 6 December 2017 Ms Yousif was arrested and charged with the following three offences:
1 Participating in a criminal group in contravention of s 93T(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);
2 Using a false document with the intention of inducing a person to accept it as genuine and then to influence that person to exercise a public duty in contravention of s 254(b)(iii) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);
3 Knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely 55.5 grams of methylamphetamine in contravention of s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW).
Ms Yousif’s trial in the District Court in Albury commenced on 24 February 2020. Ms Yousif pleaded not guilty. On 2 March 2020 Ms Yousif was found guilty. The sentencing judge imposed an aggregate term of three years imprisonment commencing on 25 June 2020, to be served by way of an intensive correction order. Ms Yousif subsequently discontinued an appeal that had been lodged against her conviction.
These proceedings concerned an application by the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales for a declaration that Ms Yousif is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers and an order that her name be removed from that roll. Ms Yousif opposed the relief sought, accepting that she was not a fit and proper person at the time of the offences, but contending that she had developed sufficient insight into her behaviour and was now a fit and proper person.
The Court held, declaring the Respondent is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers and ordering that her name be removed from the Roll:
(1) The jurisdiction of the Court to remove the name of a person from the Supreme Court roll is protective, not punitive. Its purpose is protection of the public and its confidence in the legal profession. Consistently with that purpose, where the relevant conduct involves serious dishonesty, it will normally be appropriate to order the legal practitioner’s name to be removed from the roll, since honesty goes to the heart of the professional responsibilities of a legal practitioner: [43]-[44].
New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284, applied. Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Gregory [2017] NSWCA 101; Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Croke [2024] NSWCA 195, referred to.
(2) The applicant must prove in accordance with the civil standard that the practitioner is likely to be unfit to practise for the indefinite future. However, where there is demonstrated misconduct and a claim of rehabilitation, the evidentiary onus shifts to the practitioner: [45].
de Robillard v Council of the New South Wales Bar Association; Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v de Robillard (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 299; Stanoevski v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 93, applied.
(3) There is no constraint on the Court making its own findings as to the Respondent’s credit and relying upon those findings in disposing of the application before it: [53]
Smith v NSW Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256; [1992] HCA 36, referred to.
(4) In the present case, Ms Yousif had committed serious criminal offences, two of which went to her honesty. She gave false evidence both at her trial and in these proceedings concerning her involvement in the offences. Accordingly, the Court was satisfied that she was ‘likely to be unfit to practice for the indefinite future’: [52]-[56].
THE COURT: This is an application by the Prothonotary for a declaration that Ms Alina Yousif is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers and an order that her name be removed from that roll. The application follows Ms Yousif’s conviction on 2 March 2020 of the following offences:
One charge of participating in a criminal group in contravention of s 93T(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [Count 1];
One charge of using a false document with the intention of inducing a person to accept it as genuine and then to influence that person to exercise a public duty in contravention of s 254(b)(iii) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) [Count 2];
One charge of knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely 55.5 grams of methylamphetamine in contravention of s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) [Count 3].
Ms Yousif was born in Iraq in 1991. She came to Australia with her family in 1995 as a refugee. Growing up, she had a difficult family life with an alcoholic father. After completing Year 12, she studied law and economics at the University of New South Wales. She graduated in 2015 and was admitted as a solicitor in February 2016. She then worked for approximately eight months with Galloways Solicitors, a firm in Potts Point, Sydney, that specialised in criminal law. Prior to her admission, she had worked there as a law clerk.
While working for Galloways, Ms Yousif came into contact with Mr Clinton Parkinson, to whom she was introduced some time between February and October 2016, while she was a still a law clerk. Mr Parkinson, who had connections with the Bandidos Motorcycle Club, had been in custody for several years after being convicted of supplying the prohibited drug methylamphetamine in a commercial quantity and of two firearm related offences: see R v Parkinson [2010] NSWCCA 89. He had approached the firm to represent him on his application for parole, for which he became eligible on 8 June 2015. He was released on parole on 12 July 2016.
After leaving Galloways, Ms Yousif moved to Griffith to work for the Aboriginal Legal Service (ALS) as a junior solicitor. She worked there for approximately one year until November 2017. Initially, she worked with a more senior ALS solicitor, but in her affidavit evidence she says that from early 2017 she was the only solicitor in the Griffith office. During that time, Ms Yousif says that she worked “very long and hard” hours, getting up at 5.00am on most days and not leaving the office until 11.00pm. She says that “[o]n mention days, it was common for me to mention up to 40 matters a day” and that on hearing days it was common for her to have four or five hearings scheduled for which she would have to prepare, even if they were adjourned. She said that she had no family, friends or support in Griffith.
Before this Court Ms Yousif gave somewhat different evidence concerning her workload at ALS. She said this:
I was the only solicitor there. I was dealing with the only Griffith matters. I was juggling the whole mention list. I was dealing with 160 mentions a day, about five hearings on hearing days. In terms of Jonathan, he was in Griffith, but he was still travelling to Wagga. And the Griffith ALS solicitors don't deal with Wagga matters. He was still finishing off with his Wagga matters. So to me, yes, I, I felt like I was the only solicitor there and I voiced that concern with Chris Day several - on several occasions because it was, was too much work.
The evidence given by Ms Yousif concerning her time at ALS appears to be exaggerated. According to a letter dated 18 September 2024 from Ms Nadine Miles, Principal Legal Officer of the ALS, that was admitted into evidence without objection, the practice leader in the Griffith office when Ms Yousif took up her position was Ms Zoe Alderton, who left in late April 2017 (Ms Yousif says that Ms Alderton left before then on leave). Ms Alderton was replaced by Mr Jonathan Wilcox who commenced on 5 June 2017 after transferring from the Wagga Wagga office. At about the same time, another solicitor joined the office in Griffith. Ms Yousif said in cross-examination in relation to this evidence that Mr Wilcox continued to work on files in the Wagga Wagga office and consequently was not able to assist her when he arrived and that she has no recollection of another solicitor working in the Griffith office, although she does not deny the information contained in Ms Miles’ letter. It is not plausible that Ms Yousif has no recollection of another solicitor working in the Griffith office for a period of approximately six months while she was there. As will become apparent, this is one of several instances where Ms Yousif gave evidence before this Court which cannot be accepted.
Shortly after moving to Griffith, Ms Yousif started a relationship with Mr Parkinson, who had recently been released on parole and had moved to a place in Kooba Street in North Albury (the Kooba Street Property), which is approximately a three hour drive from Griffith. How that came about is not apparent from the evidence, although it is reasonable to infer that Mr Parkinson and Ms Yousif remained in contact after they were first introduced in connection with Mr Parkinson’s application to be released on parole. The relationship continued until 6 December 2017, when both were arrested in circumstances described below. Shortly before her arrest, Ms Yousif had left the ALS and started working for Legal Aid in Wagga Wagga.
At first, Ms Yousif’s relationship with Mr Parkinson was harmonious. He came to stay with her in Griffith some days during the week and she would visit him in Albury over the weekend. For the majority of the time they were together, Ms Yousif paid the rent and bills for the Kooba Street Property. However, Ms Yousif says that after the first couple of months “[Mr Parkinson’s] true character started to appear” and that he became “mentally and physically abusive, controlling and manipulating”. She gives evidence of one occasion when he punched her repeatedly in the car while driving back to Albury from Victoria, with the result that it was necessary for her to go to Albury Hospital to have her injuries (two black eyes and a serious facial cut) attended to and subsequently to take a week off work. She gives inconsistent evidence about whether she drove herself to the hospital or whether Mr Parkinson took her. The inconsistency took on some significance because Ms Yousif explained that she did not tell the doctor she saw that she had been a victim of domestic violence because Mr Parkinson was present in the hospital room when the doctor asked her how she had sustained her injuries.
“Wait, wait, why can't you just - lf the cops stop you just give them your fucking Indian licence ...” then after being shown a copy of Mr Kearney's Indian Licence, “... Funny as. When I seen Clint's one I laughed. I still have it ... White fucking fellow - in my laptop case. White fucking fellow with this Indian licence ... l could probably get away with an Indian licence because people tell me I look Indian.”
KEARNEY: Fuck if I hadn’t handed that letter (?) today bro I wouldn’t be in there
PARKINSON: Hey?
KEARNEY: If I hadn’t handed in that letter today, I wouldn’t be here bro. That fuckin letter had fuckin better work.
YOUSIF: No, it will work.
PARKINSON: Can you go down with him because you’re a lawyer? If that’s okay babe?
YOUSIF: Yeah, cos I said um what do you call it—that.
PARKINSON: It is pretty mad though, isn’t it?
YOUSIF: If they say no, then I can say that I’m a JP and I’ll certify that it as [is] a true copy.
KEARNEY: I’m telling you that if I worked at an RTA and someone bought that in I’d fucking laugh at them.
PARKINSON: [inaudible]
YOUSIF: No, I’ll [inaudible]
PARKINSON: Sticky tape the back of it.
YOUSIF: No don’t sticky tape it.
PARKINSON: Yeah, sticky tape the back of it. Because of what’s happened right, and then just put it in a plastic [thing?]
KEARNEY: [inaudible]
YOUSIF: Yeah but then they’re gonna ask you what happened to it.
KEARNEY: No, I’ll say the fucking waitress threw it out in the bin. [inaudible] ask me.
PARKINSON: Just say you had it on the table
KEARNEY: But that’ll be something they don’t forget
PARKINSON: Just say you had lunch, you went to fucking—you had it on the table, you’ve gone to the toilet, she thought it was rubbish and she threw it out. When she threw it out, she threw it in the fucking bin.
On 23 November 2017, Mr Kearney and Ms Yousif attended the Service NSW office in Albury. They presented the letter of authenticity, which had been torn up and then taped together, to an employee who asked why the letter was damaged and where it came from. Mr Kearney said that it had come from India. However, the employee pointed out that it purported to be issued by the Consulate General of India in Sydney. At that point, Mr Kearney became frustrated and left the counter. Ms Yousif stayed and asked the employee if she could verify the document as a true copy as she was a Justice of the Peace (JP). The employee at the Service NSW office said that she could not. The employee took a photocopy of the letter and returned the original to Ms Yousif who then left the premises with Mr Kearney.
The events relating to the third charge occurred in November 2017.
Mr Parkinson had an arrangement with Mr David Oddy by which Mr Oddy would transport methylamphetamine from Melbourne to Albury, which Mr Parkinson would then sell.
On 1 November 2017, a video surveillance device captured Mr Parkinson and Ms Yousif counting money and discussing the supply of drugs. They had the following conversation:
YOUSIF: I've counted 6 grand. Do you want me to put it in a bundle?
[Ms Yousif then continued to count the money]
YOUSIF: How much do you need to get up?
PARKINSON: 12 grand.
PARKINSON: You give me 3 ounces, then you times 8 by $1000.
YOUSIF: You need another 4 [thousand].
…
YOUSIF: Do you need me to pull out 2 thousand from my account?
PARKINSON: No, only if really needed it. I've got it, I've just got to chase it up. [Mr Oddy]'s getting it now.
YOUSIF: I can pull it but then you've just got to give it back to me. lf you need it then I've got it for you.
The following day, Mr Oddy collected the methylamphetamine which was hidden in a modified gas cylinder. He was intercepted by NSW Police at 2.50 am on 3 November 2017. They searched and seized his car. Mr Oddy then contacted Mr Parkinson and told him what had happened. Later that morning, Mr Parkinson woke up Ms Yousif and told her what had happened and asked her to speak to Mr Oddy, which she did. One of the things they discussed was whether the police had been tipped off. Ms Yousif doubted that they had and said that the drug squad would have stopped Mr Oddy if that were the case. She told him “Clint, if you've been tipped off, if you were fucking tipped off, who was waiting for you at Harvey Norman, was it random coppers or was it [a] task force? Fucking use your brain”. She also said, “lf you've been tipped off for anything it's always the drug squad that stops you not fucking highway patrol” and “Who the fuck would've said anything?”.
There was then a discussion about whether Mr Oddy should contact the police to collect his car during which Ms Yousif said “Don’t go there [to the police station], give them a call”.
Ms Yousif was arrested on 6 December 2017.
On 7 December 2017, Ms Yousif’s legal representatives, Oxford Lawyers, disclosed to the Law Society the circumstances leading to her arrest.
On 14 December 2017, the Law Society wrote to Ms Yousif’s legal representative advising that the Law Society Council was considering immediate suspension of Ms Yousif’s practising certificate. As an alternative, it was suggested that Ms Yousif could surrender her practising certificate. The Law Society sought submissions on the question of suspension. It did not receive a response.
On 12 February 2018, the Law Society again wrote to Ms Yousif’s legal representative in similar terms to the correspondence on 14 December 2017.
Ms Yousif pleaded not guilty. She said in her affidavit evidence that she did not want to go to trial and that she wanted “to accept guilt very early on in my matter”. However, she said that she was afraid of the shame that a plea of guilty would bring on her “conservative, middle eastern” family and the effect that it may have had on her sister’s employment.
Ms Yousif was released on bail on 17 December 2017. On 3 February 2020, she obtained a job with The Boring Contractors Pty Ltd, a civil construction company, initially as a personal assistant but subsequently as a general manager. She remains in that position on a salary of approximately $130,000. Also following her arrest, Ms Yousif started volunteer work with Navitas (an English tutoring program for refugees) and joined the youth group at St Mary’s Cathedral, where she goes to church. She has continued with both activities.
Ms Yousif’s trial commenced on 24 February 2020.
The issues at trial in relation to counts 1 and 2 were whether Ms Yousif knew that the letter of authenticity of the Indian drivers licence provided to the Service NSW employee in her presence was false, and whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that she had used it with the intention of inducing the Service NSW employee to accept it as genuine. The issue in relation to count 3 was whether Ms Yousif knew, at the time she counted the money and offered to lend Mr Parkinson a further $2,000 towards the purchase, that the money was to be used to purchase a quantity of methylamphetamine.
Ms Yousif gave evidence at trial denying those matters. In relation to counts 1 and 2, she said that neither Mr Parkinson nor Mr Keaney told her that they had obtained a fake Indian licence for Mr Kearney. The first time she saw the licence was shortly before she gave evidence at her trial. She said that she first saw a copy of the letter authenticating the licence on 22 November 2017 when she went to the Boomerang Hotel in Albury to collect the keys to the Kooba Street Property from Mr Parkinson after driving there from Griffith. According to her, the certificate was lying face up on the table at which Mr Parkinson, Mr Kearney and others were sitting. Mr Kearney explained to her that the document was the letter he needed to get his licence the following day. Ms Yousif said that the next time she saw the document was when someone brought it soggy and in pieces to the Kooba Street Property. Since she had seen the document intact, she offered to provide a certificate to that effect, which is how she came to attend the Service NSW office with Mr Kearney.
Ms Yousif was cross-examined at trial about the fact that she had referred to herself as a JP when dealing with the employee at Service NSW. Her initial position was that all solicitors were JPs. However, later she resiled from that position and said that she told the employee that she was a JP because “a lay person doesn’t understand that a solicitor is also a JP … I accept that there are different titles … it’s easier for me to say, ‘I’m a JP’ because people understand, a lay person understands what a JP is”. She also gave evidence that “It wasn’t a lie to deceive, it was simply just me trying to make it easier”. Before this Court, however, Ms Yousif maintained that she did not understand that solicitors were not necessarily JPs until she was cross-examined on the subject at her criminal trial. She gave this evidence:
Q. You're saying that it was easier to tell that you're a JP rather than a solicitor?
A. That wasn't the first time that I had told a person that I'm a justice of the peace so prior to that where I had certified a document I had I'm a justice of the peace [sic], I can certify this because I remember one occasion when I said I was a solicitor it confused the person so the person only thought that a justice of the peace can certify it. So I, I stand by my answers, I was being completely truthful there when I said that, that was the first time that I found out that a solicitor is not a justice of the peace and me saying that I'm a justice of the peace was just making it easier it wasn't being dishonest.
A. Well, Ms, Ms Curry, the evidence I give today is the same evidence at trial, because that's what I believed to be true at trial. The only reason why I went to the RMS [Service NSW] was because the letter was damaged. If the letter was not damaged there was no need for me to go to the RMS. I gave the suggestion to certify as a true copy because I had seen the letter before it was damaged.
Did I know for certain that that letter was a, a forgery? For certain, 100%, no. But were there red flags? Yes, there was a lot of red flags. I, I think about it now, there was a lot of red flags. There was a lot of things that - there was puzzle pieces that when you put together I now understand that I should have seen that back in 2017, that that letter was a fraud. It was a fake. Whether I suggested to certify as a JP or not, I was still engaging in a fraudulent letter, I was engaging in a fraudulent certificate, I was engaging in criminal activity.
And later, when asked what her final answer was on this topic, she said:
My answer is I did not know for certain, but there was enough for me to have known that it was forged, yes.
Q. In your evidence in the District Court at your trial you wilfully misled the Court with your account, didn't you?
A. With respect to the Indian consulate letter?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Sorry, when you say you were outside having a cigarette when I thought before your evidence was that you were having the cigarette with Mr Kearney and Mr Parkinson.
A. No, so I left Griffith, came to Albury, called Clinton, said - because I didn't have the keys to the Kooba Street address - I said, "Where are you?" He said, "I’m at the Boomerang Hotel." Went to the Boomerang Hotel, we all came, we were all at the table, they had all finished dinner. I sat down, had a drink of Coke or something, Danny said, "Let's go outside to have a cigarette." We all walked outside to have a cigarette but before we walked outside to have a cigarette that's when I seen the letter. He said, "That's the letter that I need to take to the RMS tomorrow."
We got up, walked outside, had a cigarette, came back, got angry with the waitress that she had cleared the table when he had told them, "Do not clear the table." She had said that she had put everything in the bin, "It's in the back bin." So then we got up, walked outside, he went through the bin, like jumped into the bin. It was, it was pretty dark and I seen him pull something out or pulled a few papers out and he goes, "I think this is it." I had taken the keys from Clinton to the house and I drove back home so they came after me, like, I would say like 40 minutes after me. So I had gone, I had gone home before, before them.
Q. Is your evidence that at the time you were counting this money you didn't know it was in relation to drugs?
A. Yes, at the time I did not know that that money was going to be used for the supply of 55 grams of methamphetamines.
Q. So you say that the evidence that you gave at your trial where you denied that you knew that this money was to be used for drugs was the truth?
A. Correct.
Q. Well what are you accepting in relation to count 3?
A. I counted money that was involved in even mere suspicion of it being something illegal which I did have at the time should have been enough for me to step back and not get involved and I, and I got involved and I accept the jury found me guilty. I accept my punishment and, and I, I, I'm not giving excused [sic] for that I accept that what I was involved in was criminal. What I was involved in was the supply of knowingly take part in a supply but at the time when I was giving my evidence I was being truthful that I did not know exactly what the money was for. But I knew that it was for something - I, I know now to be the supply of 55 grams of methamphetamine. I wasn't involved in the planning of the supply or, or there's was no, I was never involved in that. I, I counted money and I had suspicions and there were red flags that it was for something illegal and I, I should have stopped it then and, and I didn't so I accept my conviction, I accept the, the punishment that I received as a result of that.
Q. And with respect to your account in relation to the drug supply offence?
A. The evidence I gave with respect to the drug supply offence was evidence that I believed to be true at the time.
Ms Yousif was found guilty on 2 March 2020. At her sentencing hearing, she tendered a report dated 10 June 2020 from Mr Sam Borenstein, a clinical psychologist. Ms Yousif had been referred to Mr Borenstein on 30 January 2018 by her general practitioner under a Mental Health Care Plan for symptoms of depression. Mr Borenstein said that, at that time, she presented “with severe symptoms of depressed mood and uncertainties with regards to her future”. She returned for treatment on 21 occasions between 6 February 2018 and 5 June 2020 (Mr Borenstein records that she had a further appointment scheduled for 12 June 2020). Mr Borenstein expressed the opinion that Ms Yousif had severe symptoms of depressed mood, extremely severe symptoms of anxiety and severe symptoms of stress as well as severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which became “severe and chronic [as a result] of her being regularly abused, physically, psychologically and emotionally in the relationship with Clinton Parkinson”. According to Mr Borenstein, Ms Yousif’s judgment and ability to make sound decisions was “severely compromised” because of her PTSD, her offending behaviour was “completely uncharacteristic” and was the result of her suffering from chronic and severe PTSD.
The sentencing judge imposed an aggregate term of three years imprisonment commencing on 25 June 2020, to be served by way of an intensive correction order with the following conditions:
Not to commit any offence.
To be supervised by Community Corrections.
To undergo programs and/or treatment.
Not to consume illicit drugs.
To perform 400 hours of community service work.
To telephone the Fairfield Community Corrections Office within seven days.
More than a year later, on 30 July 2021, Ms Yousif sought leave to appeal her conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal identifying nine grounds of appeal. She subsequently discontinued the appeal on 1 September 2022, following receipt of the Crown’s submissions. She said in evidence before this Court that she did so against the advice “from senior counsel, junior counsel and my solicitor”, and that that was “the first time since being charged that I decided to finally accept full responsibility”.
Ms Yousif stopped seeing Mr Borenstein in May 2021. However, she saw him again on 11 June 2024 for the purpose of obtaining a report from him to be used in these proceedings. Ms Yousif said when giving oral evidence in chief that she intended to resume her therapy with him. She had resisted doing so until recently because she thought that it might affect the Court’s attitude to the current application. However, she said that she accepted that she still needed help, and had come to learn recently that far from damaging her prospects on the current application, her willingness to continue her therapy with him was likely to assist them. In relation to the need for further treatment, she gave this evidence:
Q. Do you agree that you have regularly failed to meet the timetable set by this Court in relation to these proceedings?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. I, I believe these are one of the things I need to discuss with Sam. When I'm under stress or under a lot of pressure, I, I sort of just walk away from it. Just put it to the back of my head. I don't intentionally mean to do that, it's not my intention to do that, it's just something that's just my coping mechanism at the present state.
Q. Is it fair to say that you go into a state of denial about what you have to do?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it fair to say that you, to use a colloquial expression, put your head in the sand?
A. Yes.
I have treated Ms Yousif over the years, and when assessed on 11 June 2024, I state with confidence she has developed significant insight into her past behaviour, and her struggles with symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, depression and panic.
Ms Yousif has greater awareness of the nature and cause of those symptoms, and is well placed and able to manage same, and importantly, she has heightened awareness when she might be placed in situations where her personal and psychological integrity could be threatened.
The inherent power of this Court to order the removal of the name of a person from the Supreme Court roll is preserved by the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (the Uniform Law): ss 23(1), 264.
The question to be determined in an application for removal from the roll is whether the practitioner is a fit and proper person to remain as a member of the profession: Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409 at 416; [1947] HCA 53 (Re Davis); Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Green [2022] NSWCA 257 (Green) at [58]. The question must be determined at the time of the hearing: A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (2004) 216 CLR 253; [2004] HCA 1 at [21]; Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Livanes [2012] NSWCA 325 at [24]. It requires the Court to consider whether the practitioner is likely to be unfit for the indefinite future: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Zhukovska (2020) 102 NSWLR 655; [2020] NSWCA 163 at [99]. “Indefinite” in this context is not the same as “permanent”. Rather, the requirement is that it not be apparent whether, and if so when, the practitioner might be suitable for reinstatement to the roll: Stanoevski v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 93 at [52]-[53]; Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Hansen [2023] NSWCA 189 at [17]-[18]; Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW v ‘A’ (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWCA 258 at [35] (where the requirement was expressed in terms of whether the unfitness was likely to continue for the “foreseeable future”). The jurisdiction is protective, not punitive. Its purpose is protection of the public and its confidence in the legal profession: Green at [58].
Consistently with that purpose, where the relevant conduct involves serious dishonesty, it will normally be appropriate to order the legal practitioner’s name to be removed from the roll, since honesty goes to the heart of the professional responsibilities of a legal practitioner. As Spigelman CJ explained in New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284 (Mason P and Handley JA agreeing), a case involving a barrister who failed to lodge tax returns over many years:
[19] Honesty and integrity are important in many spheres of conduct. However, in some spheres significant public interests are involved in the conduct of particular persons and the state regulates and restricts those who are entitled to engage in those activities and acquire the privileges associated with a particular status. The legal profession has long required the highest standards of integrity.
[20] There are four interrelated interests involved. Clients must feel secure in confiding their secrets and entrusting their most personal affairs to lawyers. Fellow practitioners must be able to depend implicitly on the word and the behaviour of their colleagues. The judiciary must have confidence in those who appear before the courts. The public must have confidence in the legal profession by reason of the central role the profession plays in the administration of justice. Many aspects of the administration of justice depend on the trust by the judiciary and/or the public in the performance of professional obligations by professional people.
See also Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Gregory [2017] NSWCA 101 at [27]-[28]; Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Croke [2024] NSWCA 195 at [12].
We cannot accept those submissions.
The offences cannot be looked at in isolation. They arose in circumstances where Ms Yousif chose to establish a close personal relationship with a known criminal. The two dishonesty offences involved a degree of planning. They were serious offences for a solicitor to commit because they involved a deliberate attempt to mislead a public official.
We accept that Ms Yousif was in an abusive relationship with Mr Parkinson and in the context of that relationship Ms Yousif would want to appease Mr Parkinson in order to limit the amount of abuse she suffered. However, we cannot accept that that relationship was the primary reason she committed the offences. It seems plain from the language she used in the recorded conversations set out above and what actually happened that she was a willing participant in the events that constituted the offences. It is apparent from the conversation quoted in para [13] above that Ms Yousif was involved in planning the dishonesty offence. It was not a case where the plan was developed by Mr Parkinson and Mr Kearney and she was simply told what to do. When the plan began to go awry at the offices of Service NSW and Mr Kearney left the counter, she stayed and sought to persuade the employee to accept what she knew to be a false certificate.
Similarly, in relation to the drug offence, it was Ms Yousif who offered to contribute money to the price of the drugs. Mr Parkinson did not ask for the money. Indeed, he declined her offer.
Little weight can be put on the opinion expressed by Mr Borenstein concerning Ms Yousif’s PTSD and its relevance to the offences she committed, since the opinion is not directed at the specific conduct in question and is based entirely on Ms Yousif’s account of the events.
Ms Yousif pleaded not guilty to the charges and actively defended them. In doing so, she gave evidence that she knew was false. Although because of the inconsistent evidence Ms Yousif gave before this Court, it is not possible to say with any degree of certainty what evidence Ms Yousif now accepts was false and what evidence she does not, it is clear that she gave false evidence when she said that she did not know that the letter purporting to be from the Indian consulate was a forgery and on occasions before this Court she accepted that that was the position. Although Ms Yousif did not accept it, it also seems clear that she must have known that the evidence she gave about how the forged letter came to be damaged was false. That is evident from the recorded conversation quoted in para [13] above. It is plain from that transcript that Mr Parkinson, Mr Kearney and Ms Yousif were not discussing what had actually happened to the letter, which is what Ms Yousif said at her trial, but were discussing what story should be given at the time that the letter was presented to Service NSW. It is not plausible that someone who participated in the concoction of a story about how the letter came to be damaged believed the story when giving evidence of it. Similarly, having regard to the conversation recorded at para [17] above, it is not plausible that Ms Yousif did not know that the money she was counting, and that she offered to supplement, was to be used to buy illicit drugs.
Accordingly, the orders of the Court are:
Declare that Alina Yousif is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers maintained by the Court under s 22 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (the Roll).
Order that the name Alina Yousif be removed from the Roll.
Order that Alina Yousif pay the applicant's costs of, and incidental to, these proceedings.
**********
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Yousif [2025] NSWCA 77
(2004) 216 CLR 253
(2020) 102 NSWLR 655
(2001) 52 NSWLR 279
(1947) 75 CLR 409
(1992) 176 CLR 256
The Court declared Alina Yousif not fit and proper to remain on the Roll of Australian Lawyers, ordered her name removed, and ordered her to pay the applicant's costs ([58]).
On another occasion in late 2017, Ms Yousif says that Mr Parkinson withdrew most of Ms Yousif’s salary from her bank account. When she questioned him, he pushed her causing her to fall and hit the side of a bedside table leaving a cut to the back of her head.
Several months after the relationship commenced, Mr Parkinson decided to join the Bandidos Motorcycle Club. Subsequently, Ms Yousif started receiving periodic visits from Bandidos members checking up on her. Ms Yousif says that from that time she was “constantly being followed and watched in Griffith during the week and on weekends in Albury”, that she was “under Clint’s control” and that he was “a very overpowering and controlling person”. Ms Yousif says that she was too afraid to leave Mr Parkinson and that “[t]he reasons why the offences were committed was because of Clint’s control over me at the time and my fear and intimidation of him”.
By August 2017, NSW Police had commenced an investigation into Mr Parkinson and for the purposes of that investigation lawfully intercepted telephone calls and text messages for his mobile telephone services and installed surveillance devices in the Kooba Street Property. Much of the evidence against Ms Yousif at trial was obtained from those sources.
Perhaps of even more significance in the context of the current application, we cannot accept that some of the evidence Ms Yousif gave before this Court was truthful. This was understood to be an issue during and following the first day of the hearing; it was expressly addressed in submissions on the second day. There is no constraint on the Court making its own findings as to her credit and relying upon those findings in disposing of the application before it: cf Smith v NSW Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256; [1992] HCA 36.
There is a question whether Ms Yousif gave truthful evidence before this Court about whether, at the time she attended the Service NSW office with Mr Kearney, she knew that she was not a JP so that when she told the Service NSW employee that she was she was lying. Ms Yousif’s evidence on this issue is at best confused if not contradictory. Moreover, it seems unlikely that a solicitor would not know the difference between a solicitor and a JP and that a person was not a JP by virtue of being a solicitor. However, it is not necessary to reach a concluded view on this issue, since there are two important respects in which it is clear that the evidence Ms Yousif gave before us was false.
First, we cannot accept that Ms Yousif honestly believed the account she gave of how the forged Indian consulate letter came to be damaged. The account she gave before this Court was different from the account she gave at her trial. The account itself was implausible. It was implausible that Ms Yousif had only remembered the true facts when she gave evidence before this Court. And the account was implausible given her recorded discussion with Mr Parkinson and Mr Kearney.
Similarly, in relation to count 3, we cannot accept Ms Yousif’s evidence before this Court that she did not know that the money she counted (and offered to supplement) was to be used for the purchase of a quantity of methylamphetamine. The evidence she gave on this subject was particularly evasive because, on several occasions, what she denied was knowing that the money was going to be used “for the supply of 55 grams of methamphetamines”. The introduction of a precise quantity in the answer to the question created an ambiguity because it became unclear whether Ms Yousif was denying that she knew the precise quantity of drugs to be purchased or whether she was denying that she knew that the money was being used to purchase any drugs. Ms Yousif came across as an intelligent person. The introduction of the ambiguity appeared to be deliberate. The only plausible reason for introducing the ambiguity was to avoid giving an honest answer to the question. Indeed, the ambiguity itself was implausible as there was no reason to doubt the recorded reference to “three ounces” as the amount being supplied.
Nor do we think Ms Yousif has developed an adequate insight into her offending so that now she is suitable to remain on the roll. At the very least the answers she gave in cross-examination before this Court referred to above demonstrate that Ms Yousif has not fully accepted the respects in which her conduct involved the commission of serious criminal offences, including criminal offences going to her honesty. Although she now says that she accepts that she needs further psychological help, she refrained from obtaining that help because she thought it would damage her case before this Court. She has indicated that she now proposes to seek that help because she understands that it will assist her case. This and the other evidence we have referred to indicate that Ms Yousif remains a person who is willing to say and to do whatever will achieve her immediate goals without being overly concerned about what the right thing to do is. It demonstrates that she continues to be unfit to remain on the roll. It is not possible to say with any confidence if and when the position will change.