Victorian Legal Services Board v Jensen [2022] VSC 430

TAKE NOTICE, DENNIS JENSEN, COMMON LAW RESOLUTIONS PTY LTD (CAN 610 824 729) AND JTA CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 098 788 848) THAT YOU ARE LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT OR SEQUESTRATION OF PROPERTY IF:

1. WHERE THIS ORDER OR YOUR UNDERTAKING REQUIRES YOU TO DO AN ACT WITHIN A FIXED TIME, YOU REFUSE OR NEGLECT TO DO THE ACT WITHIN THAT TIME; OR

2. WHERE THIS ORDER OR YOUR UNDERTAKING REQUIRES YOU TO ABSTAIN FROM DOING AN ACT, YOU DISOBEY THE ORDER OR YOUR UNDERTAKING.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

...

As against the first defendant

1. Pursuant to s 447(3) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Vic) ('Uniform Law'), the first defendant is restrained from engaging in legal practice in the State of Victoria when not an Australian legal practitioner, including from:

(a) providing legal advice in relation to disputes, proceedings or potential proceedings;

(c) drawing documents on behalf of, or as agents of litigants, including pleadings, affidavits and submissions; ...

3 Initially the VLSB filed the following affidavits:

(a) Two affidavits of Chantalle Toussaint, dated 5 and 5 November 2021; and

(b) An affidavit of Lily Thi Nguyen, dated 15 November 2021.

4 When the trial commenced, I explained to Mr Jensen that when he appeared before Garde J, his Honour told him that he needed advice from a legal practitioner as to the effect of the order and what he could and could not do. Garde J explained to him that the court's order was a restraining order, breach of which would constitute contempt of court that would have serious consequences, including imprisonment. I asked Mr Jensen whether he knew of and understood the content of the injunction. He confirmed he had people explain it to him and that he believed he understood it, and that he was content to proceed with this hearing without the assistance of a legal practitioner.

5 It is common ground that Mr Jensen has never been admitted to legal practice in Victoria and does not hold, and never held, a practising certificate. His two companies, the second and third defendants, have never been registered as law practices in Victoria. Despite this, Mr Jensen and his companies were found to have engaged in legal practice and to have represented that they were entitled to engage in legal practice.[2] Consequently, on 2 August 2018, the court restrained the defendants in the terms set out above.

6 On 14 August 2018, the injunction orders were served on the defendants.

7 On 18 February 2021, the VLSB received a complaint from a firm of solicitors that its client and his parents, had received incorrect legal advice from Mr Jensen in around mid-2020 and that this advice resulted in its client being charged with contravening a personal safety intervention order ('PSI order' or 'IVO'). The client was facing a rape charge and the complainant was the beneficiary of the PSI order.

8 The VLSB re-opened its investigation into Mr Jensen's conduct. It obtained a series of email communications, between 7 August 2020 and 29 October 2020, apparently between Mr Jensen and the parents of the accused. The identities of the parents, the accused and the complainant are all protected by pseudonym orders.

9 Mr Jensen initially objected to the admission of these emails via Ms Toussaint's affidavit as hearsay. However, they were proved by the mother of the accused, a party to the email exchanges with Mr Jensen.

11 On 16 July 2020, the PSI order was made against the accused.

12 On 7 August 2020 at 5:24pm, Mr Jensen sent an email to the parents. The email said:

It was lovely to connect with you today.

The attached is a heavy duty spiritual initiation to an affidavit.

It sounds like you may not have a lot of forensic evidence, so I am using Common Law (Gods Law).

To rebut the Holy scriptures is impossible in a court, and by anyone else, You need to

Just fill out the story you want to get across.

You are welcome to delete or change what I have done. I just wrote it as if my son had been accused of something that he didn't do.

I am open for you to give it your own creative structure.

Love and Blessings

Den

Denn Jensen

Managing Director

The JTA Corporation P/L

(a) A template affidavit entitled 'Template Certificate Identifying Exhibit to Affidavit';

(b) A series of photographs of a volume apparently from the Supreme Court Library, entitled 'Statutes at Large, from the Fifth Year of K. William and Q. Mary, to the Eighth Year of K. William III' and an extract thereof;

(c) A draft affidavit, headed 'Affidavit' and 'The law is spiritual'. It contained a mixture of references to scripture, archaic legal texts, current statutes and statements pertaining to legal and religious matters. The statements included, 'The contents of this affidavit are based on FACT AND LAW and CANNOT BE STRUCK OUT in a Court of law unless the FACTS AND LAW are forensically rebutted.' It left blank a space for the relevant facts to be inserted.

14 On 11 August 2020 at 11:54am, the parents emailed Mr Jensen and said:

we have had a good look at all the docs.

I just had a call about making a statement so the time line just moved up a bit.

He said we could send in a written statement so not sure if that needs to be an affidavit?

Is there a time we could have a discussion about how to go about this process?

Thanks again for your help.

15 On 11 August 2020 at 12:08pm, Mr Jensen replied and said:

I will be able to call later today or early evening.

An affidavit would be the choice over a statement.

I don't do statements because they do not hold any authority in the law. An affidavit trumps an affidavit and will short circuit the whole process.

If either side does not have any forensic proof. The first at law stands at law. And to get an affidavit in first they have to rebut it with forensic proof.

As you see in the affidavit template I sent you I am setting a scene for an unrebuttably affidavit with Common Law which is Almighty Gods Law.

This cannot be unrebutted. I will chat later on today.

I recommend that you don't send a statement!!!!

16 On 13 August 2020 at 2:23pm, the parents emailed Mr Jensen:

I have attached an Affidavit from my 2 sons and [redacted] re: the false accusation against [the accused].

We have included everything we could remember so some of it may not be needed.

Thank you so much for your assistance with these matters.

These look great, Well Done.

I will go through these tonight.

What time will you be up till tonight. I am in a meeting at the moment.

Just finished the ZOOM, so will check the affidavit.

This is the document we have been working on.

19 The attachment was a lengthy informational communication entitled 'The Death of the Andrews Government' containing various allegations about public officials and quasi-legal arguments about the validity of certain public conduct.

20 Also on 13 August 2020 at 11:34pm, the parents sent an email to Mr Jensen asking:

[The accused] just asked a valid question. Is he allowed to send anything to her when is under a 3 year IVO?? ...

21 On 14 August 2020 at 1:50am, Mr Jensen emailed the parents:

This was a bigger job than I thought.

I have put a bit of law in but I am to tired to think now and I have to be up in a few hours. Sorry I haven't got to yours [redacted] but will try my best to get it complete asap.

22 A draft affidavit in the name of the accused was attached to the email. It contained various passages/comments in yellow or blue highlighter and was peppered with various extracts from legislation.

You all need to go through it with a fine tune comb and make sense of some bits the bits in blue are some of my additions there are other additions as well but please make sure that it reads well

The yellow needs a bit of work with names etc...

24 On 16 August 2020, the parents emailed Mr Jensen:

Hi Denn and Derek,

we have combed through it all over and over again but, would greatly appreciate your perusal before we are confident to send it to the police.

There are a lot of attachments but, only [redacted] and my Affidavits are of any size.

I have attached all three affidavits from [redacted], [redacted] and myself.

Please check the title section at the top. We have made each title of each affidavit between the person making the Affidavit and [redacted] not the not all between her and [redacted]. Is this correct?

I have added what legal statements made sense from [redacted] affidavit into [redacted] and my ones but, this will need to be checked.

Please check and make sure that the Exhibits are added correctly.

As for Exhibit 1 for the THE STATUTE AT LARGE quotation I have included the pictures that you sent with the front page and pg. 23 of the quote. I'm not sure how you can get an affidavit over this when we only have a copy but, presume that we get the JP to do it as per the other affidavits.

As for Exhibit 2 and 3, comprising the screen-shots of my mobile phone submitted in support of our time line, I have included the Exhibit 2 and 3 in the main document as well as done separate documents for separate affidavits for the Exhibits using the form you supplied. I need to know the format you use. I presume that you have to have a separate affidavit for each of the exhibits and will thus delete the examples attached at the end of the main documents for [redacted] and I. Please advise.

In addition, I think that we need a simple cover letter to the police explaining what we are doing and why. I know we probably don't need to but, think it will help streamline the process. Any idea of what is ok to write would be appreciated?

Kind regards and a big thanks to you all!!

25 On 18 August 2020, copies of three affidavits sworn by the parents and the accused under a covering letter, were posted to a police officer. The covering letter asked him to 'Please immediately forward these documents to [the complainant]'.

26 On 19 August 2020 at 3:45pm, the parents emailed Mr Jensen:

No doubt you are weaving magical words to help people. When you have a moment could you please spare a few minutes for a phone conversation re the affidavit.

The detective has acknowledged receipt by calling us, however he didn't think he could pass on a copy to the girl in question as it would be seen as coercion from them. We suggested that he go further up the food chain to find a way to serve the papers to her as she only has 7 days to provide forensic evidence. He obviously had not seen an affidavit like it before.

What are your thoughts or suggestions re this. Are they obligated to forward it on, just as a solicitor would forward on to their client??

27 On 19 August 2020 at 4:02pm, Mr Jensen replied and said:

Under the pump at the moment.

I am happy if you just sent it off to [the complainant], today by Registered post.

Don't put a sender on it. But send it the most secure way and track it!!!

We can deal with the orders by destroying the Mag Court later. Don't worry about the IVO's

28 The mother said that sometime in late August 2020, during a telephone conversation between herself, her husband and Mr Jensen, the parents said to Mr Jensen words to the effect that they would pay him for his services. Mr Jensen responded with words to the effect that he could not accept payment but he could accept a donation.

29 On 26 August 2020 at 11:15am, Mr Jensen emailed the parents:

Lovely to chat the other day. Once Friday is up and we do not have a rebuttal we then can do another affidavit of the events from when you sent the affidavit off.

This then will lock the initial affidavit into place and there cannot then be any convictions on your son.

I am happy to assist with the next affidavit.

It is great that you were able to confirm the "POWER" of the affidavits with the QC.

I do affidavits over Newspaper articles when they come out like the "Red Shirts for Rorts" which you saw in the "Death of the Andrews Gov doc.

I send it to the relevant people and they do not rebut it.

I can then use it at a later date . There are no time limits on affidavits. You can make great changes with councils etc. with Affidavits.

My bank details are:

Den Jensen [details redacted]

Thank you for your donation, it will be received with great gratitude.

30 On 31 August 2020, the mother transferred $250 to that bank account.

31 On 2 September 2020 at 7:46pm, the parents emailed Mr Jensen:

I was just wondering if you received all of the info about the receipts for the affidavits for [redacted]?

I'll send them again just in case.

Hope you got your computer up and running.

I did receive the doc's

Thank you for your donation, greatly appreciated.

I will get this done ASAP.

I have had a couple of urgent cases where people have been evicted. But I will be on top of them by tomorrow and I will do [redacted].

Then he will be a free man

I called [the policeman] to make sure that he received the affidavits on the 19/08/2020 and asked him to send them on to [the complainant] as we were concerned about not violating the courts intervention order against [the accused].

He confirmed that he had received the documents however said that he would not send them onto her as he was acting on her behalf and that he thought that it might look like 'coercion' if he did.

I asked him again to send it on as she only had 7 days for a rebuttal of the affidavit and as he was in possession of the documents and was representing her he was responsible for making sure that she received the documents.

I think I then said that he should discuss it with his superior and please send it on. He said it would still take a few weeks to give his boss all of the evidence and make a recommendation and that it would them be up to his boss to make the final decision.

He discussed the case with me and asked about the other guy [redacted] and etc. I told him basically what I had stated in the affidavit.

I'm not sure of the exact words and obviously should have written them down or recorded the conversation.

I wish I knew the legalities of serving her direct but, I really don't want to make things worse.

I hope that is ok.

34 On 3 September 2020 at 10:35am, Mr Jensen sent the parents an email:

I have put an email together below to send to [the police officer].

I need you to email the Police and see if they sent through the affidavit [the complainant].

And if you can also ask for confirmation

If they haven't they have perverted the course of justice.

If you can please get it in writing from them in an email it is really important.

35 The covering letter Mr Jensen provided to the parents read:

[Police details]

Dear Sir

We are emailing you today for a document of confirmation/certification that you did send the three Affidavits by us:-

...

Our unrebutted affidavits of the 18-08-2020 may/must be taken into evidence and

• I state that, my un-rebutted affidavit stands as Truth in Law.
• I state that, my un-rebutted affidavit becomes Judgment at Law.
• I state that, my un-rebutted affidavit becomes a Question of Fact.
• I state that any interference of NON -Delivery as requested will be noted as Perversion of Justice

We now reserve and exercise our rights to start an Originating Motion in the Magistrate Court for the crimes committed by the now defendant [redacted].

Please email statement, and/or receipt of delivery of the Sworn and Certified Affidavits you sent/delivered to [the complainant] as soon as possible so I can start action.

36 On 4 September 2020 at 3:58pm, the parents sent an email to the police officer in the form provided by Mr Jensen.

37 On 9 September 2020 at 1:59pm, the parents sent an email to Mr Jensen asking:

Just wondering what we do now. We sent the email to the detective but he has not opened it. Is this maybe because he has been advised not to? We sent it last Friday. Can we proceed in another way? Send it as a hard copy and if after 72 hours they don't do anything, it stands?

38 On 11 September 2020 at 12:07pm, the parents received an email from Mr Jensen:

I have been trying to get this done for you.

You now need to send the affidavits and the note below to [the complainant] directly and the [redacted] Magistrate Court.

39 The email included a draft letter to be sent to the complainant which was to attach the three affidavits. The letter said, among other things: 'We now require you to rebut this affidavit. We will give you a further 7 days for your response.'

40 On 11 September 2020 at 5:06pm, the parents sent an email to Mr Jensen:

I just want to make sure we have this right. Do you mean just send the email below to the [redacted] Magistrates Court which includes the note to [the complainant] or are we to send the email to her as well, (would that then be including the entire affidavit we sent to police) which obviously we would then be breaching the intervention order. Sorry if we are being pedantic/paranoid but we are nervous about breaching the order and the repercussions of that and the detective at this crazy time.

Also is the affidavit that the detective has enough to keep [the accused] out of any further proceedings if we waited a little longer?

41 On 11 September 2020 at 5:16pm, Mr Jensen responded:

Please send the email and the affidavit to [the complainant] and the magistrate court.

Any issues with the Police or the court we can handle it very easy because we can nullify and void both entities.

Please don't stress we have your back. This is an easy one for us.

Today we took out the High Court with a case "Just for fun" LOL

42 On 24 September 2020, the parents arranged to have the covering letter and three affidavits sent to the complainant via registered post.

43 On 9 October 2020 at 4:33pm, the parents emailed Mr Jensen, 'We are around all weekend and evening for a chat.'

44 On 12 October 2020 at 4:54pm, the parents emailed Mr Jensen:

Police want to see [the accused] this week and his only day off work is Wednesday. Could we chat tonight maybe about the IVO affidavit and get some advice please.

45 Later that day, Mr Jensen sent through another draft affidavit on behalf of the accused and two proposed exhibits. He said:

I have just whipped up an Affidavit which would be great if you could sign certify and deliver the Police in [redacted].

I did decide to take out the Police. It is up to you if you want to leave it in.

Have a play with it and feel free to add or delete.

46 The draft affidavit pertained to the PSI order. It claimed, among other things, that the order was, 'frivolous, vexatious, without substance, made in bad faith' and that the affidavit 'now NULLIFIES AND VOIDS any purported intervention orders'. It purported to justify the alleged breach of the intervention order.

47 On 14 October 2020, the accused affirmed the final form of his affidavit.

48 Also on 14 October 2020, the accused was charged with breaching the intervention order, on the basis of the conduct I have just described.

49 On 26 October 2020, the accused was charged with, among other things, rape of the complainant.

50 On 29 October 2020 at 7:22pm, the parents emailed Mr Jensen:

I've had a look at the counter claim and it requires a solicitor to fill it out as it needs a court number and also lawyers details etc. So do I just get my solicitor to do it? Also there's a money section? Sorry but I'm not thinking very clearly so would like some direction please. Frankly I'm trying not to be sick.

51 At 10:00pm that night, the 'JTA Corporation' responded, with a subject line, '[the accused] can win this', providing a link to a counterclaim form and advising:

You can file on your own behalf. There is a filing fee unless they can use a health care card.

The counter claim will seek specific evidence and proof of what she said occurred. Because it is a counter claim SHE becomes the defendant too in the case and they can state that false allegations and include any previous history.

He may want to subpoena medical records as part of this if that supports his case.

52 The mother stated that Mr Jensen helped the parents and accused prepare five affidavits in total.

53 The power to punish for contempt is an exercise of judicial power to protect the due administration of justice. The court must determine whether the impugned conduct had the capacity to interfere with the due administration of justice.[3]

54 The onus is on the applicant to prove the charges against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.[4] It is not necessary to prove that Mr Jensen intended to breach the court's order or interfere with the administration of justice,[5] but it is necessary to prove that he deliberately and voluntarily intended to commit the acts alleged to constitute the contempt.[6] The category of contempt in this case is disobedience to an order requiring a person to abstain from doing anything;[7] in other words, breach of a court order.[8]

55 To establish contempt by breach of a court order, the VLSB must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:[9]

(a) An order was made by the court;

(b) The terms of the order are clear, unambiguous and capable of compliance;

(c) The order was served on the defendant;[10]

(d) The defendant had knowledge of the terms of the order; and

(e) The defendant breached the terms of the order.

56 Mr Jensen did not dispute elements (a) to (d). Notwithstanding, I have no doubt that those matters are established on the evidence. The order spelled out explicitly the conduct that Mr Jensen was to refrain from doing. Mr Jensen told the court he understood the order and that he had someone explain it to him. The terms were also clearly explained by the court when it made the order. In his written submissions, Mr Jensen rightly conceded that the 'Orders were clear and precise'.

57 The only issue in contention was whether Mr Jensen's conduct amounted to a breach of the injunction, i.e. whether Mr Jensen provided legal advice in relation to proceedings or potential proceedings and/or drew documents on behalf of, or as agents of litigants, including affidavits.

58 The VLSB submitted that the email correspondence set out above amounted to a clear breach of the injunction. There can be no doubt on the email evidence that Mr Jensen provided legal advice to and drew affidavits on behalf of the accused and his parents.

59 Significantly, Mr Jensen expressly told the parents to serve the affidavits on the complainant. When they pointedly asked about the risk of breaching the PSI order by doing so, he told them not to worry about it. As a consequence, the accused has been charged with a breach of the PSI order.

60 Mr Jensen filed four affidavits in the contempt proceedings.

(a) The 18 February 2022 affidavit purported to advance various legal arguments that did not assist his defence.

(b) The 25 February 2022 affidavit stated that the VLSB's case lacked 'forensic evidence' and that Mr Jensen 'never made any inference or explicit statements that [he is] a legal practitioner.' The remainder of the affidavit contained irrelevant argument of a pseudo-legal nature.

(c) The 26 May 2022 affidavit said:

(i) Mr Jensen suffered from advanced dyslexia brought about by complications arising out of brain damage he suffered as a result of a serious injury at age 15. He therefore has difficulty forming coherent sentences and reading complex text.

(ii) He met the parents in June 2020 through a colleague. He has never met them or the accused in person.

(iii) He denied having breached the court's injunction orders.

(iv) He said the substance of the VLSB's affidavits was based on hearsay evidence and no 'witness statement' had been provided by the parents, the accused, or their lawyers.

(v) He claimed that he could neither admit nor deny most of the allegations against him because he had no 'direct knowledge' of how the documents were obtained, who provided them and if they were established to be true copies. He also maintained that the emails were confidential as evidenced by a confidentiality warning in the email signature, and that there was no evidence that there had been consent to disclose them.

(d) The 7 June 2022 affidavit was ostensibly in response to the mother's affidavit. Mr Jensen persisted in his claim that the affidavit contained hearsay evidence. He also claimed that the deponent did not particularise precisely how he helped her prepare the alleged affidavits. He said he could not accept payment from the parents as he was not providing a service and the suggestion of a donation did not come from him. He confirmed he received the $250 donation.

61 At the initial hearing of the application, Mr Jensen told the court by submission:

(a) 'They're not my emails';

(b) 'The purported affidavits [attached to the emails] are not my affidavits';

(c) 'There's no evidence that I actually sent them';

(d) 'My emails are on my computer. And I haven't printed anything off to give anybody as an email';

(e) '[T]here's a lot of people use my computer. It's a computer that is for business';

(f) 'I've had other people use my computer and send out a lot of stuff';

(g) 'They could have been adjusted or altered';

(h) 'I can hardly read or write';

(i) 'I'm not very computer literate, Your Honour. People send emails out. I send an email out. It goes from my computer ... If I have to write an email for business I get people, or any emails, I get people to write them pretty much for me because I struggle writing and reading';

(j) '[T]here were other people that were writing these documents and affidavits and things for me anyway'.

62 Mr Jensen sought to cross-examine the VLSB's witnesses to put these propositions to them. He had not given notice either that the authenticity of emails was challenged or that witnesses were required for cross-examination. I adjourned the proceedings to allow the plaintiff to have its witnesses available for cross‑examination and for the parties to put on any further evidence. When the hearing resumed, I granted leave for Mr Jensen to be assisted by a Mackenzie friend. Mr Jensen declined to give oral evidence and he called no witnesses. He had required all of the VLSB's witnesses to attend for cross-examination.

(a) Mr Jensen put to the mother that the email signature stated that the email correspondence was private and confidential and could not be copied or forwarded without the prior consent of the sender. However, the mother conceded the email was forwarded to the solicitors and the VLSB without his consent. Mr Jensen clarified that he was in fact the sender and the mother did not have his permission to share these emails. Accordingly, the authenticity of the emails was acknowledged by both sender and recipient.

(b) The mother did not agree with Mr Jensen when he put to her that one of the affidavits attached to the emails was merely a 'template' affidavit and it was the parents that filled in the details, not Mr Jensen.

(c) Mr Jensen raised the mention of a 'QC' in one of the emails. The witness confirmed she understood this to be a reference to Queen's Counsel. He asked whether the mother did seek any advice from Queen's Counsel or any other legal practitioner about affidavits and statements. The mother said she did research on affidavits herself but she did not actually go and seek legal advice from any lawyer.

(d) The mother confirmed that Mr Jensen never communicated with the police on their behalf.

(e) Mr Jensen put it to the mother than all the affidavits were prepared by her and her husband and sent by the parents themselves. The mother agreed but said 'we added all of our information ... but we did have ... your input ... [W]e prepared them to the best of our abilities ... with your help.'

(f) Mr Jensen put to the mother than he did not at any time represent himself to be a licenced practitioner. The mother said 'Ah, not using that word, those words, no.'

(g) Mr Jensen asked: 'Is it correct that I informed you that I had court orders preventing me [from] working directly with a litigant?' The mother answered 'You mentioned that you did have something like that going on, but ah that ... I do recall a conversation to do with that, but that he would still give me advice regarding what was going on with the affidavits.'

(h) Mr Jensen asked: 'Did I refuse to take your money because I was not providing you with legal service?' The mother replied, 'I'm pretty certain it was, yes, you couldn't take it as a payment ... but then a donation was discussed.'

(i) Mr Jensen asked: 'Did I ever give you an invoice for services?' The mother said, 'No, not that I'm aware of.'

64 Mr Jensen's further submissions were inconsistent with a defence that he never sent the emails as he had initially stated. Instead, he maintained that he did not provide any legal advice to anybody. Mr Jensen submitted:

(a) He did not represent himself to be an Australian Legal Practitioner.

(b) The conversations and communications he had with 'any other party' was simply administrative and not legal in nature.

(c) He did not correspond with any litigant or potential litigant. The parents were not litigants nor potential litigants and he had no direct dealings with the accused.

(d) Mr Jensen maintained he did not draft documents on behalf of any litigant or act as their agent. He was merely exercising his inalienable right to free speech and was assisting lay people with non-legal matters. The 'correspondence amounted to nothing more than lay advice'.

(e) The purpose behind the injunction was to restrain him from holding himself out as a member of the legal profession, which he did not do.

(f) The parents evidently did not consider Mr Jensen a lawyer and the mother gave contradictory evidence to the emails. The parent's email of 29 October 2020 at 7:22pm said: 'I've had a look at the counterclaim and it requires a solicitor to fill it out as it needs a court number and also a lawyer's details etc. So do I get my solicitor to do it?' However, when the mother was asked if they consulted a solicitor at that time, she answered no.

(g) The mother admitted that not only did Mr Jensen not hold himself out as a qualified lawyer, he told her he was prevented by injunction from providing legal services. He said he made it clear that he could provide 'only so much assistance'. In addition, he said he gave the mother only templates, which the parents supplemented with their own input and their own research from the internet. The mother was not clear about the extent to which Mr Jensen assisted the parents in drafting the affidavit. He submitted that 'whatever information [he] provided the mother was no more than information she could have obtained readily from the internet or government websites'.

(h) The mother admitted Mr Jensen did not seek payment and had refused such payment.

(i) Mr Jensen concluded: 'I just tried to assist some people who needed help. If I did breach the orders, I didn't realise, but I'm sorry.' When asked by the court about the content of the emails, Mr Jensen said 'these were just suggestions that I was offering the parents'.

65 Mr Jensen could not refute the authenticity of the emails exchanged between him and the parents. A participant in the email exchange, the mother, gave direct evidence about their authenticity and was not cross examined on that aspect of her evidence. Mr Jensen also shifted his defence away from disputing that he sent those emails. He conceded that he did so. That line of defence can be disregarded.

66 The emails show quite clearly that Mr Jensen went far beyond mere friendly, non-legal practical or administrative advice, consistent with information that could be found on the internet - such as downloading an online form or template from the court website.

67 The template affidavit Mr Jensen shared with the parents was evidently of his own creation or from some unknown source and a member of the public would not have understood it to be authorised by the courts. Mr Jensen did not only send templates, however. He also created first drafts of affidavits, commented upon or settled the drafts that the parents created or supplemented, and on one occasion drew up the entire affidavit. The affidavits and documents he produced made legal claims, claims that were wrong.

68 Mr Jensen's technical submission that he did not give advice to or draw documents on behalf of the accused directly, and the parents were not litigants, cannot be accepted. He knew the parents were acting as intermediaries for the accused. He drew up and/or settled affidavits on behalf of the accused himself. The parents were also obviously seeking advice in the best interests of their son and were acting on his behalf in their interactions with the police and with Mr Jensen who knew this. He repeatedly said things to the effect that their son would be 'a free man' if they followed his advice. The affidavits he prepared for the parents were done with the intention that they would be used in pending litigation, either the criminal rape proceedings, litigation challenging the intervention order, or some other proceeding. Mr Jensen alluded to them filing an 'Originating Motion in the Magistrate Court for the crimes committed by the now defendant'.

69 It was also evident that while the parents did not think Mr Jensen was a qualified lawyer, they believed that Mr Jensen had some expertise that could assist them and their son with a substantial legal issue. Mr Jensen engendered this impression by making definitive and unqualified assertions about the law, the functioning of the criminal justice system, and the legal consequences of the parents' and the accused's actions. He said he was helping other people with legal issues: 'I have had a couple of urgent cases where people have been evicted.' He gave the parents advice of a legal nature and intended them to act upon it to improve their son's position in response to the police allegations, which they did. He overrode the parents' valid concerns by providing unequivocal reassurance.

(a) An affidavit is preferable to a witness statement because a statement has no authority in law. An affidavit can 'short circuit the whole process'; the first affidavit made 'stands at law' and must be 'rebut[ted]' 'with forensic proof.' He told the parents that once seven days had elapsed from providing the complainant with their version of events on affidavit, 'This then will lock the initial affidavit into place and there cannot then be any convictions on your son.'

(b) With Mr Jensen's assistance the accused 'will be a free man' and 'can win this'.

(c) The affidavit drafted by Mr Jensen would have the effect that it 'cannot be rebutted'.

(d) A recommendation that the parents and accused not provide the police with a statement and instead provide their versions under oath in the form of an affidavit.

(e) Mr Jensen said he 'put in a bit of law' into the affidavits.

(f) The parents asked Mr Jensen to 'peruse', 'check' and ensure the correctness of the affidavits and attached exhibits.

(g) Mr Jensen drafted a covering letter to send on behalf of the accused and his parents to the police and to the complainant, which made legal claims. He told the parents if the police hadn't forwarded on their affidavits to the complainant, 'they have perverted the course of justice'.

(h) Mr Jensen drafted an affidavit on behalf of the accused which claimed that the intervention order was nullified and void.

(i) Upon being asked at least twice whether it was permissible for the parents or accused to send anything to the complainant in light of the PSI order, Mr Jensen advised the parents to send the affidavits and covering letter to the complainant. He said, 'We can deal with the orders by destroying the Mag Court Later. Don't worry about the IVO's'. Later he reiterated, 'Please send the email and the affidavit to [the complainant] ... Any issues with the Police or the court we can handle it very easy because we can nullify and void both entities. Please don't stress we have your back. This is an easy one for us. Today we took out the High Court with a case "Just for fun" LOL'.

(j) Once the accused had been charged with both a breach of the PSI order and the crime of rape itself, Mr Jensen persisted in giving the parents advice, encouraging them to file a counter claim which, he insisted, would make the complainant a defendant and that would have evidentiary implications for the litigation. He advised the accused to subpoena medical records.

(k) Mr Jensen was happy to accept a 'donation' in lieu of payment because he was cautious to avoid the appearance of provision of legal services in breach of the order. He was seeking to defeat the order through, what he perceived to be, a technical loophole.

71 The evidence satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Jensen provided legal advice in relation to proceedings or potential proceedings and drew documents on behalf of, or as agents of litigants, including affidavits.

72 Mr Jensen's conduct frustrated the key purpose of the injunction order against him. The order sought to protect the public and the administration of justice from Mr Jensen holding himself out as capable of drafting legal documents and dispensing legal advice when he was not qualified to do so.

73 Mr Jensen purported to give legal advice and instructions to the parents, about a particularly serious situation, where the parties involved were desperate and vulnerable, and he created the impression that his advice would have certain legal consequences beneficial to the son. The parents trusted Mr Jensen and acted on his advice to the detriment of all involved, the parents, the accused and the complainant. His advice not only breached a court order itself, but encouraged the accused to breach another order of a court, which has resulted in further charges.

74 There is no doubt that Mr Jensen's conduct imperilled the due administration of justice.

75 I find that Mr Jensen is guilty of contempt of court in that he breached paragraphs 3(a) and (c) of the order of Garde J made 2 August 2018.

76 I direct that, on the issue of the appropriate penalty to be imposed for this contempt, the VLSB file and serve any outline of submission, and any further affidavit within 21 days and that Mr Jensen file and serve any outline of submission, and any further affidavit within a further period of 21 days. The proceeding will otherwise be adjourned to a date to be fixed shortly after submissions are filed on an estimate of not more than one day.

[1] Pursuant to r 75.11 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic).

[2] Victorian Legal Services Board v Jensen [2018] VSC 740, [46].

[3] The Queen v The Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd (Ruling No 2) [2020] VSC 800, [76]; Victoria v Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation [1982] HCA 31; (1982) 152 CLR 25, 53, 56, 60.

[4] R v Witt [2016] VSC 19, [45] ('Witt').

[5] Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Grocon Constructors (Victoria) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 261; (2014) 47 VR 527, 563 [138].

[6] Witt [2016] VSC 19, [46].

[8] Legal Services Board v Forster (No 2) [2012] VSC 633, [43].

[9] Hera Project Pty Ltd v Bisognin [2019] VSC 483, [67].

[10] Or excused in the circumstances, or dispensed with pursuant to the rules of the court.