Slip, slop, slap
Monday, January 4, 2021 Tasmanian brief and the "ethnically" charged threat to international students ... Threat withdrawn ... Multiple texts at strange hours demanding payment of $650 ... You can't take Ipswich out of the man ... 5G conspiracies ... The former MP's "distinguished" political career saved his bacon ... Unprofessional conduct ... Alan Zheng reports
Slipper: adornment to parliament
There must be something in the waters of Ipswich that predisposes notable residents against migrants.
Peter Neil Slipper (or PNS), Ipswichian, former Speaker of the house of reps and now Hobart brief, was recently caught in the crosshairs of the Tasmanian Legal Profession Board after threatening to arrange for the deportation of two international students.
Being only a threat, it was an ersatz imitation of his political party's crimmigration policy. For his efforts, he was wet-lettuced with a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct and required to grovel.
To know Slipper the man, we must harken to his love of the Speaker's regalia. His was a love so great that it drove him to abandon coalition party lines in 2011 and accept the Gillard government's offer to sit in the high chair.
There were also the allegations of misusing cab-charges to visit wineries. A conviction for dishonesty in the ACT Magistrates' Court followed, along with an order for 300 hours of community service, before the Supreme Court did its quashing.
Slipper's then staffer, James Ashby (now working for another Ipswichian), also made allegations of sexual harassment against him which were initially dismissed by Rares J in the FCA on abuse of process grounds.
Various of Slipper's "vile text messages" about female genitalia emerged, once more showing the rigorous standards that apply in party preselections.
Ashby appealed successfully before discontinuing the case against Slipper in 2014. In 2020, Ashby still owed money to his lawyers and the Commonwealth.
When the political gyrations fizzled out, Slipper found a fresh way of professing his love for the wig and gown when he started afresh, setting-up shop at Hobart's Salamanca Chambers in 2017.
Contentment with the ways of the Tasmanian bar has not been easy, as Slipper made clear with his persistent lobbying for the restoration of the QC bauble in Tassie, which in 2019 he described as "extraordinarily important".
Forget the finery, the former Speaker should be wearing tinfoil after he appeared at an event for Stop 5G Global in 2019. He said:
"Technology, in principle, is a wonderful thing. However, when it starts to affect peoples' health then clearly it's time for us to pause and look very closely at this technology to see whether the risks are actually worse than the benefits."
Stop 5G Global has championed the conspiracy theory that, among other things, 5G is a government weapon used to control people and COVID-19 was intentionally released to aid the roll-out of 5G networks.
The concerns relate to the radiofrequency radiation emitted by 5G signals, the same signals emitted by mobile phones, AM and FM radio, TVs and microwaves.
Aditya Sethi v Peter Neil Slipper
Mr Sethi and his friend Mr S were international students who had applied for Skilled Regional visas (subclass 489). A possible restraint order against them complicated matters.
They were concerned for their student visa status and continued residence in Australia if convicted and so they found themselves referred to barrister Slipper.
All was good and well to begin with until the relationship began to sour.
Mr Sethi and Mr S had made two complaints. First, Slipper engaged in misconduct by requesting money for legal fees in advance of work to be conducted.
No luck on that score as the fee included preparation work already performed by Slipper.
The second complaint, which alleged Slipper sent an inappropriate text message tantamount to a threat to deport the clients, landed the awful blow.
The clients had made numerous unanswered requests for invoices and receipts. When they requested an itemisation of a $650 fee for a conciliation, Slipper played coy.
He described the amount as the "all up total" of a conciliation "regardless of how long it takes".
When the clients repeatedly expressed concern over the fee Slipper responded:
"What do you want to discuss about the very moderate fee I have advised about the conciliation?"
The clients took their troubles to another barrister, while Slipper finally sent an invoice for payment of $650:
"... to my costs of and incidental acting further on your behalf on your behalf [sic] in this matter; preparation for conciliation and numerous communications back and forth."
He failed to mention those communications were mostly one-sided. A conciliation conference had been set for mid-July 2019, yet that hadn't stopped Slipper from requesting payment of $650 via text message on nine separate occasions throughout May and June - despite the clients' indicating they would make the payment closer to July.
The clients' request went unacknowledged and Slipper continued his barrage of texts. Not since a teen has been outside past curfew have so many text messages been received.
"When will my fee ($650.00) be paid?" Slipper asked repeatedly.
In their complaint, the clients wrote:
"He [Slipper] txts me at 4am and demand money."
The Law Society of Tasmania's Pro Bono Referral Service encourages practitioners to fulfil their "wider professional responsibility", a responsibility that does not extend to oversight of Australian migration policy.
Slipper became exhibit A in Freud's teachings on parapraxis after sending a text message to an uncle of his clients - this was after he discovered fresh counsel had been obtained:
"... I'm inclined to write to the Minister for Home Affairs as I'm not convinced we need people like these guys in the country. I have to check whether it is ethnically [sic] appropriate for me to do so. If it is I will and if it's not I won't."
Five hours later in the wee hours of the morning - 3:36am - Slipper had second thoughts. He sent a retraction:
"I thought I would let you know that I have decided not to write to the Minister for Home Affairs even [sic] it is ethically appropriate for me to do so."
If anyone is "ethnically appropriate" it's certainly not Slipper who, in his miden speech rambled on about "Australia - it's Christianity, its origins, its form of government and its position in the world" and decried "outrageous Aboriginal land claims" and the "dark days of the Whitlam years".
In his defence before the board, Slipper threw a myriad of explanations and excuses into the mix, hoping one would stick. None did.
He claimed he was jet-lagged when he sent the initial "indirect threat", but this was only mitigating not exculpatory.
He also suggested there was no evidence the clients ever felt threatened or intimidated by the first text message or even received the message from their uncle. A suggestion of procedural unfairness was also dismissed.
When asked by the board whether that message could be appropriate in any circumstances, Slipper replied:
"I was completely uncertain of the ethics of it." When pressed, he added: "I can't tell you it was appropriate ... I would have checked."
The board was concerned that Slipper "did not appear to fully accept or understand the gravity of the complaint".
"Were it not for the retraction of the threat early on the following morning, the board would not have treated the complaint as a less serious matter under section 456 of the Act."
Thanks to Slipper's "distinguished career ... outside of legal practice", some references supporting his competence and diligence and not being subject to any substantiated complaint within the last five years, he got away with a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct, a slap with the lettuce leaf and an order to apologise to Mr Sethi.
Choke ... splutter.
Reader Comments