“FAILED IN DUTY”

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17229, 8 April 1930, Page 5

“FAILED IN DUTY”

QUEENSLAND LAW SOCIETY

JUDGE REITERATES STATEMENT

BIMRBAN I*l, March 25

Mr. ,1 usf ice Alaorossnn further criticised the Council of the Queensland Law Society and the statutory committee for not taking prompt action in the ease of Robert McGowan, solicitor, who was sentenced to 1-t years' imprisonment for tlu‘ theft of trust l'utuls. lie reiterated that prompt and appropriate action would have cheeked McGowan's career of dishonesty before the end of .1928, and thus have protected his subsequent victims.

.Mr. Justice ’Macrossan said that McGowan's conduct, as disclosed by his association with the Renton versus Masted case, was the subject matter of his, Mr. Justice Macrossan's. reference to >the council that the conduct demanded investigation into matters which involved against -McGowan charges of perjury, manufacturing a false document, fraud, and false pretences. He still adhered to the view t.luti. both the council ami statutory committee -failed in their duty to the public in relation to Me-. Cowan, and he thought that contrition for such a failure, with the promise of amendment, would have been more lilting than resent incut of judicial criticism.

Up to I lie time that the findings' of the statutory committee in the McGowan case were. Hied at the Supreme Court on July 2, 192!), it was the only case that had been dealt with under the new Act of 192!*, proceeded Mr. Justice Macrossan. On that very same day, the then ehairnmu <d' the statutory committee, Mr. E. H. Macartney, by letter to the secretary, tendered lii.s resignation owing to bis appointment as Agent-General for Queensland. In that letter, Mr. .Macartney wrote, inter alia: ‘‘l wish to express the view that the legislation bv which the committee has been constituted has been perhaps a little, premature for Queensland. In a small community, when- members of the profession are more or less generally know, the one to the other, ami in so many instances are associated not only in business transactions, but in many instances by-closer ties, the objection to the larger jurisdiction seems to me to be a substantial oik*. 1 suggest that the committee ana Ire representations to (lie Chief Justice and the. Attorney-General with a view to the moditiealion of the legislation.” Mr. Justice Atacrossnn added that these views were based on Mr. Macartney's personal experience of the functioning of the council and statutory committee in relation to the McGowan case, and that case only. They emanated from a disinterested and unbiassed observer of the higher standing in the community, and of the highest repute in the profession. They led to the inescapable conclusion that without exonerating the statutory committee, its chairman felt that that body had been impeded in the discharge of its duty by the reluctance and want: of single-mindedness on the part of the council in prosecuting its case against .McGowan.

He, Mr. Justice Macrossan, had, on October 28 last, written to the Attor-ney-General, giving his opinion that there had been failure of duty on the part, of Die Law Society in relation to the McGowan case, and suggesting that the Act should |bo amended by restricting the jurisdiction conferred. Since the McGowan case he had ro ceived many helpful communications, and had every hope that out of evil good might come, with the result that the public might feel secure and that confidence in the great profession of law might be restored. After all, that was the only object he had in view.