STANLEY v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2018] NZHC 1154

STANLEY v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2018] NZHC 1154 [22 May 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHECIV-2017-485-976[2018] NZHC 1154IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006BETWEEN JOHN LLEWELLYN STANLEYApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETYRespondentHearing: 16 February 2018Appearances: J C Gwilliam for ApplicantP N Collins for RespondentJudgment: 22 May 2018JUDGMENT OF CLARK JIntroduction[1] The applicant, John Stanley, wishes to be admitted as a barrister and solicitorof the High Court New Zealand. As part of that process for admission, Mr Stanleyapplied to the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) for a certificate of character. Aftera process of inquiry Mr Stanley's application was refused.[2] Mr Stanley now applies under s 49(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act2006 to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand. Thequestion for my determination is whether I am satisfied, notwithstanding the NZLS'srefusal to issue a certificate of character, Mr Stanley is a fit and proper person to beadmitted as a barrister and solicitor.Background[3] Mr Stanley is 64 years of age. His career has been as an insurance broker.[4] Mr Stanley obtained his law degree in 2011 and completed the ProfessionalLegal Studies Course in December 2016. On 8 February 2017 Mr Stanley applied tothe NZLS for a certificate of character. The application form contained the question:Have you ever been convicted of any crime or offence in New Zealand oroverseas other than one concealed by the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act2004?Mr Stanley ticked the "Yes" box and noted next to the tick-box: "Car EBA".[5] A supplementary letter provided more detailed responses to some of thequestions in the standard form. The Wellington Branch Administrator of the NZLSrequested a copy of Mr Stanley's criminal conviction history. Mr Stanley's criminalconvictions report recorded the following convictions:20 March 1978 Driving with excess bloodalcohol levelDisqualification from driving;fine31 August 1988 Drove a motor vehicle at adangerous speedDisqualification from driving;fine19 November 1991 Operated a vehicle carelessly Fine23 January 2002 Drove with excess blood alcoholcontentFine12 September 2007 Drove with excess breath alcohol– 3rd or subsequentSpecial circumstances found –no disqualification; fine6 December 2013 Failed to stop when followed byred/blue flashing lightsFine9 May 2014 Drove with excess blood alcohol– 3rd or subsequentDisqualification from driving;fine[6] Mr Stanley was asked to provide further information to the NZLS regardingthe excess breath/blood alcohol convictions and also to provide this information to hisreferees.[7] By letter dated 11 May 2017 Mr Stanley explained his convictions. By way ofbackground Mr Stanley stated:Lower Hutt and [Upper Hutt] attracts high scrutiny when it comes to policingof [excess breath/blood alcohol]. Areas are easily blocked off and it was notuncommon to go through one or two checkpoints at that time while travellinghome. The point here is that if you have had a few drinks don't drive becauseyou will hit a testing area. The problem is you have no way of measuringwhether you are under or over limits. This gets even more complicated whereyou have strict liability and body absorption rates of alcohol can change basedon health and food. Note this because this is where I fell short in the 2014case.[8] Turning to the specific convictions Mr Stanley explained that he had not beendrinking alcohol but rather taking "Hospital Linctus" for pain relief on the day leadingto his 2002 conviction. Apparently, it is 40 per cent proof. Mr Stanley appeared inperson and satisfied the Judge he had no knowledge of the alcohol content and wasconvicted without loss of license.[9] Regarding the 2007 conviction Mr Stanley's letter accepted he failed the breathtest but described himself as convicted and discharged. In fact, the criminalconvictions report records that Mr Stanley was fined but due to special circumstances(needing a vehicle for employment) was not disqualified from driving.[10] In relation to his 2014 conviction Mr Stanley offered this preliminaryobservation in the letter accompanying his application to the NZLS:By now the Law had advanced to give police powers to close down hotels thatwere serving too much alcohol for 48 hours without reference to the court.Proprietors were encouraged in the name of community policing to reportpatrons to police and driven their car out of the hotel car park (sic). Theproprietor would make sure he got paid first of course. The customer wouldarrive home for a breath test at the front gate. The problem I have with this isthe proprietor should be convicted as well. He didn't have to sell the liquorand has a statutory obligation NOT to do so.[11] Mr Stanley explained he had lunch with a friend and consumed wine. On hisaccount, the amount consumed was within the suggested tolerances. He did not feelintoxicated and attempted to drive home. When stopped Mr Stanley told the officerhe did not feel intoxicated. But "[u]nfortunately, [the officer's] testing device did notagree ". Mr Stanley went on to explain that he "had failed to consider metabolism".Mr Stanley was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol.[12] Mr Stanley intended to defend the charge on the basis the blood test was illegalbecause the police used hypodermic needles instead of vacuum tubes "as required bystatute." Mr Stanley decided not to pursue a defence when he was advised he neededsurgery to replace a heart valve. As a consequence of his surgery Mr Stanleymaintained he has a "self-imposed zero tolerance on drinking and driving".Mr Stanley invited the NZLS to note that his convictions are limited to offences underthe Land Transport Act 1998 and he has no convictions under the Crimes Act 1961.[13] Mr Stanley concluded his letter with some final observations: his health is moreimportant and he simply won't offend again. "The process is a nightmare". As well,since the time of his conviction the blood alcohol limit has been reduced furthermeaning a zero policy is to be encouraged because "you never actually know wherethe limit is". Finally, as a father and a grandfather, Mr Stanley said he believes in safestreets and has "total respect for what the police are doing".[14] The NZLS received four referee reports in support of Mr Stanley's application.Because of his past convictions, it was considered appropriate to interview Mr Stanleyand that occurred on 5 May 2017.[15] At the interview Mr Stanley said he regretted the offences to which there werea number of contributing factors: the culture at the time of combining business withalcohol, his ill-health which reduced tolerance for alcohol and the stressful nature ofhis work. The interview notes record Mr Stanley's concern that some of theprosecutions were unsafe or unwarranted. Mr Stanley informed the President andVice-President who interviewed him that he had been diagnosed as having early signsof an alcohol dependency but had responded to that by curtailing his drinking. Hestated he avoided alcohol except on special occasions and never when he anticipateddriving.[16] Having heard from Mr Stanley, the interviewers remained unsatisfied withMr Stanley's insight into his offending and his appreciation of the questions it mightpose over his fitness to practice. Nor were they assured there was no future risk ofbreaches of standards or health-related lapses in judgement or behaviour.[17] Further inquiries were made concerning a period of approximately five yearsnot accounted for in Mr Stanley's CV. Having received the explanation for the missingyears (Mr Stanley was either self-employed or unemployed and studying),confirmation of the earlier referee reports and an updated declaration from Mr Stanleythe matter was referred to National Office.[18] Mr Stanley's application was referred to the Practice Approval Committee bysenior NZLS staff at the National Office. The Committee is a specialist committee ofexperienced lawyers appointed by the NZLS Board with delegated authority to dealwith non-standard practice approval matters. Before his application was consideredby the Committee Mr Stanley was given an opportunity to consider and respond to theinterview notes. In his response Mr Stanley spoke of his remorse and insight into hisoffending. He described his law studies, especially Professor Spiller's ethics paper, asopening his mind. As well, becoming a grandparent had helped him come to termswith the "selfishness" of his actions and having a new heart valve inserted around 2014made him realise "how fragile life really is".[19] Following consideration of all information at its meeting on 18 July 2017, theCommittee decided to decline Mr Stanley's application. In her letter of 20 July 2017conveying to Mr Stanley the Committee's decision, the secretary recorded theCommittee's concern that the focus of Mr Stanley's comments was on why he hadbeen caught for the offences rather than the fact that the offence occurred because hehad consumed alcohol and then driven. An example was Mr Stanley's reference toLower Hutt and Upper Hutt attracting high scrutiny when it comes to policing ofexcess breath/blood alcohol. The Committee was also concerned that the last threeexcess breath/blood alcohol offences occurred when Mr Stanley was 50–60 years ofage1 and could not therefore properly be described as the "bad judgment call of ayoung man". The most recent offending occurred after he completed his law degreeand, overall, he had a very poor driving history. It included three driving offences inaddition to the four excess breath/blood alcohol convictions.1 The Practice Approval Committee in a subsequent letter (dated 23 August 2017) corrected thiserror as the offending had occurred when Mr Stanley was aged 48–60 years old and not when hewas 50–60 years old.[20] The letter concluded the Committee was not satisfied Mr Stanley appreciatedthe seriousness of his offending and the significance of it to his fitness to be admittedto the profession. The Committee agreed with the interviewers that he showed a lackof insight into his offending and a lack of judgement. His regret appeared to be aboutthe process rather than his contravention of the law and the Committee could not beconfident "at this stage" that Mr Stanley would be able to exercise better judgementin the future. For these reasons, the Committee did not feel it could accreditMr Stanley to the Court, to the profession, or to the public as a fit and proper personfor the purposes of admission as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court.[21] By letter dated 3 August 2017 Mr Stanley responded saying it was clear he hadmade mistakes in interpreting the questions and he apologised and requestedreassessment.[22] Mr Stanley attended the NZLS National Office on 25 August 2017 to discussthe decision to decline his application for a certificate of character and how the mattermight be resolved short of him applying to the High Court for admission. The filenote records Mr Stanley saying he had not been asked the right questions by theinterview panel. He was not asked if he was remorseful for his offending. He thoughtthis went without saying and that the interview and interviewers' report was unfair andunreasonable. He considered they were not objective. Mr Stanley reiterated he nolonger drinks and he sought guidance as to how to move forward. The NZLSrepresentative advised Mr Stanley it could not give him legal advice and recommendedthat he seek independent legal advice.[23] On 4 September 2017, the secretary of the Practice Approval Committeefollowed up the matter with Mr Stanley by email. Mr Stanley was advised thatalthough the Committee would not revisit its decision at that time it could be asked atits next meeting on 19 September 2017 if it could provide further guidance toMr Stanley as to what steps he needed to take and the time that needs to elapse beforereapplying to the NZLS for a certificate of character. On 22 September 2017, theCommittee advised it could not give Mr Stanley legal advice and it agreed Mr Stanleyneeded to reflect to determine how to proceed. Mr Stanley was advised to seek advicefrom his counsel, Mr Gwilliam, if he intended to make an application to the High Courtor adopt some other course of action taking into account the Committee's concerns.[24] Mr Stanley filed the present application in the High Court on 22 November2017.Legislative requirements for admission[25] The preconditions and requirements for admission and enrolment as a barristerand solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand are provided by Part 3 of the Lawyersand Conveyancers Act. The Act's (relevant) purposes include:2(a) maintaining public confidence in the provision of legal services;(b) protecting the consumers of legal services; and(c) recognising the status of the legal profession.[26] To achieve those purposes the Act, among other things, states the fundamentalobligations with which, in the public interest, all lawyers must comply in providingregulated services:34 Fundamental obligations of lawyersEvery lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course ofhis or her practice, comply with the following fundamentalobligations:(a) the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate theadministration of justice in New Zealand:(b) the obligation to be independent in providing regulatedservices to his or her clients:(c) the obligation to act in accordance with all fiduciary dutiesand duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients:(d) the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding dutiesas an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties underany enactment, the interests of his or her clients2 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, s 3.3 Section 4.[27] A person in the position of Mr Stanley, that is one who seeks admission as abarrister and solicitor and has not been admitted as such in any other country, is to beconsidered against the requirements of s 49(2). The candidate for admission musthave all required qualifications for admission, be a fit and proper person to beadmitted, and meet the criteria prescribed by rules made under s 54.4[28] Evidence of suitability for admission may be provided by the NZLS certifyingthat a candidate is both a fit and proper person to be admitted and meets the prescribedcriteria. In the absence of proof to the contrary a NZLS certificate certifying acandidate as both fit and proper for admission constitutes sufficient evidence of thosefacts.5[29] Mr Stanley failed to obtain a certificate of character from the NZLS. Where acandidate for admission applies to the High Court for admission without that effectiveproof, the candidate must serve a copy of the application on the NZLS.6 The NZLSmust serve on the candidate a notice of opposition and the NZLS must be representedat a hearing at which the candidate's application is determined.7[30] The hearing is not an appeal or a review of the NZLS's decision. But thegrounds on which the decision to decline a certificate was made remain relevant tothis Court's consideration of the application8 along with other information includingthe applicant's evidence and referees' support for the application.[31] The Act does not define "fit and proper" person. For the purpose ofdetermining whether or not a person is a fit and proper person to be admitted as abarrister and solicitor the High Court, or the NZLS, may take into account any of thematters it considers relevant and in particular the matters set out in s 55(1)(a)–(l) ofthe Act. Of particular relevance to Mr Stanley's position is s 55(1)(a) and (1)(c):4 Section 49(2).5 Section 51.6 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Admission) Rules 2008, r 6(3).7 Rule 6(4).8 Gibbs v New Zealand Law Society [2014] NZHC 1141 at [20].55 Fit and proper person(1) For the purpose of determining whether or not a person is a fit andproper person to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the HighCourt, the High Court or the New Zealand Law Society may take intoaccount any matters it considers relevant and, in particular, may takeinto account any of the following matters:(a) whether the person is of good character:(c) whether the person has been convicted of an offence inNew Zealand or a foreign country; and, if so,—(i) the nature of the offence; and(ii) the time that has elapsed since the offence wascommitted; and(iii) the person's age when the offence was committed:(2) The High Court or the New Zealand Law Society may determine thata person is a fit and proper person to be admitted as a barrister andsolicitor even though the person—(a) is within any of the categories mentioned in any of theparagraphs of subsection (1); or(b) does not satisfy all of the criteria prescribed by rules madeunder section 54.(3) Subsection (1) does not limit—(a) the grounds on which it may be determined that a candidate isnot a fit and proper person for admission as a barrister andsolicitor; or(b) the criteria that may be prescribed by rules made undersection 54[32] While there is no statutory definition of "fit and proper person" the principlesare well-established. The principles applicable to Mr Stanley's application may besummarised as follows:(a) The question is whether the candidate meets the standard of"unquestionable integrity, probity and trustworthiness" imported intothe concept of "fit and proper person".9(b) An applicant for admission, in this case, Mr Stanley, must prove that hewill properly discharge his duties to the Court and to his clients and thathe is a person who may be accredited to the public by the making of anorder admitting him to practice.10(c) Where a candidate has past criminal convictions then assessing whetheror not the candidate is a fit and proper person turns on whether there issufficient evidence of a change of character, or reformation, to enablethe Court to view favourably the application:11(i) The focus is forward-looking, the function of the Court notbeing to punish for past conduct but to assess the candidate's"worthiness and reliability for the future".12(ii) The onus on a candidate for admission is a lesser onus than thatupon a person who has erred in a professional sense followingadmission to the legal profession.13(iii) Due recognition must be given to the circumstances of youthbecause the "false steps of youth" are not final proof ofdefective character and unfitness.14(iv) It is necessary to look at the facts of the case in the round andnot focus solely on the fact of a previous conviction orconvictions. Some kinds of conduct will result in instantdisqualification of fitness for the profession but there are otherkinds of conduct properly attracting disapproval but which do9 Re Lundon [1926] NZLR 656 (CA) at 657–658; New Zealand Law Society v Mitchell [2010]NZCA 498, [2011] NZAR 81 at [24]–[25].10 Singh v Auckland District Law Society [2002] 3 NZLR 392 (HC) at [29].11 Re M [2005] 2 NZLR 544 (Full Court, HC) at [21].12 At [21] applying Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales v Meagher (1909) CLR 655 at681 per Isaacs J.13 At [22] citing Ex p Lenehan (1949) 77 CLR 403 at 422.14 At [22] citing Ex p Lenehan, above n 13, at 424.not spell unfitness for the profession.15[33] In a case such as this the question is whether "the frailty or defect of characterindicated by the [earlier] convictions can now be regarded as entirely spent."16The evidence[34] In his affidavit in support of his application for admission Mr Stanley deposesto believing the NZLS misinterpreted what he was trying to convey in his letter of11 May 2017. Mr Stanley said that letter was written when he was ill in hospital withpneumonia and he was simply trying to put some context around his offending, notattempting to minimise or justify it.[35] Mr Stanley's affidavit expresses extreme remorse for his offending, however:[he] would note that in respect of the 2002 and 2007 convictions there were ineach of those cases special circumstances such that [he] was not disqualifiedfrom driving and received a fine only.[36] As to the 2014 conviction Mr Stanley accepts it is in a different category fromthe earlier convictions and it was this conviction that "has now led [him] to adopt azero tolerance to any consumption of alcohol" if he is driving. Mr Stanley deposes tohardly drinking at all except on special occasions. He has recently undergone amedical procedure necessitating his consumption of alcohol is kept to a minimum. Aswell he has embarked on a three-year drug trial in conjunction with the Hutt Hospital.The trial requires him to undergo rigorous testing and to abstain from alcoholconsumption during the course of the trial.[37] Mr Stanley offers four referee reports in support of his application. Thereferees are:(a) Peter Graeme Ryan, who is a licensed immigration adviser and whosays he has been associated with Mr Stanley in business for 30 years.His reference initially referred to his knowledge of the applicant's15 At [23] citing Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR279 at 298.16 Re Owen [2005] 2 NZLR 536 (HC) at [35].convictions only in terms of "driving offence 2016" but he wassubsequently given more detail and said he was "happy to continue asa referee";(b) David Bassett who is the deputy mayor of Hutt City and has knownMr Stanley for seven years;(c) Anthony Murray Richardson, accountant, of Lower Hutt, who hasknown Mr Stanley for 20 years "as friend, client, and former pastor";and(d) Catherine Iorns, who was one of Mr Stanley's law lecturers at VictoriaUniversity of Wellington and has also engaged with him socially. Aswell, Ms Iorns had contact with Mr Stanley in the context of litigation(with reference to Stanley v Fuji Xerox). Ms Iorns initially disclosedher awareness that Mr Stanley had "been convicted for drink driving"but subsequently confirmed her support for him after more detaileddisclosure of his convictions.[38] Sarah Inder, the regulatory solicitor and secretary to the Practice ApprovalCommittee, swore an affidavit on behalf of the NZLS. Ms Inder sets out the detail ofthe NZLS's approach following receipt of Mr Stanley's application for a certificate ofcharacter on 8 February 2018. I have summarised in the background to this judgmentthe communications and correspondence between Mr Stanley and the NZLS; theinterview of Mr Stanley by the Wellington branch President and Vice-President; andthe review of the application by the Committee.[39] Finally, Mr Stanley was cross-examined at the hearing before me. Mr Stanleywas in the witness box answering questions in cross-examination, re-examination,from the Court and then further questioning, for approximately one hour. I foundMr Stanley's oral evidence illuminating.Submissions[40] Mr Gwilliam submitted that the application before the Court must beconsidered de novo on the basis of the information before the Court and not by wayof Mr Stanley having to show that the NZLS's decision to refuse a certificate ofcharacter was wrong in law. I accept that. As Mr Gwilliam submitted this is not anappeal against the NZLS's decision.17[41] Both counsel agree the question raised by Mr Stanley's application is whetherthe frailty, or defect of character, indicated by his offending can now be regarded asentirely spent. Mr Gwilliam submitted the Court can be so satisfied pointing, inparticular, to the four excess breath/blood alcohol convictions spanning a period ofnearly 40 years, Mr Stanley's referees, Mr Stanley's Certificate in ChristianMissionaries and recent appointment as a marriage celebrant by the Department ofInternal Affairs, and Mr Stanley's "extreme remorse" for the offending and what theconsequence of his convictions have meant for him.[42] Mr Gwilliam contended there has been a clear misunderstanding on the part ofMr Stanley as to what further information the NZLS was seeking when it sought anexplanation for his convictions. It is suggested on Mr Stanley's behalf that "relyingon his advocacy skills" he effectively put forward to the NZLS a plea in mitigationand that had come across too forcefully.Assessment[43] I consider Mr Stanley's application against the backdrop of the principles towhich I have referred at [31]– [33].[44] I have some sympathy for Mr Stanley. He is 64. He is neither in employmentnor self-employed. Since obtaining his law degree in 2011 Mr Stanley said he hasdone "a lot of writing, a lot of legal work" but he resisted being regarded as retired.He has undertaken what he describes as christian work helping families who are notdoing so well. He sees himself as an experienced commercial person having had a17 Gibbs v New Zealand Law Society, above n 8, at [20].successful career in the insurance brokering field and as a salesman of photocopyingmachines and business equipment.[45] However, any sympathy I may feel for Mr Stanley's position and aspirationshas no place in the assessment which I must make. As Dixon J stated in a decision ofthe High Court of Australia, applied in New Zealand, concern or sympathy for anindividual is no reason for impairing or compromising in the individual's interests, thestandards of the profession "which [play] so indispensable a part in the administrationof justice".18[46] Having regard to all of the information before me there is insufficient evidenceof a change of character or reformation such that I can be satisfied Mr Stanley is nowa fit and proper person to be admitted.[47] Mr Stanley would have his 2014 conviction relegated to the past andacceptance of his contention that the various measures he has put in place, as well ashis own health reasons, mean this kind of offending will not recur. Mr Stanley asksthe Court to accept that as a father and now a grandfather he respects enforcement ofdrink driving laws and that the consequences of drinking and driving are to be takenseriously. Mr Stanley says he accepts full responsibility for his offending in thatregard.[48] While I accept the sincerity of Mr Stanley's statements and intentions he hasnot persuaded me the frailty revealed by his drink driving convictions are spent andcan safely be ignored, and that the 2014 conviction involved a lapse which can berelegated to the past.[49] I asked Mr Stanley what he would point to as to best demonstrating his insightinto the seriousness of his offending. Mr Stanley said he felt disgraced and, he said,that is indicated by his abstinence from drinking over the past four years. As he put it"I am on top of it I have made an oath to myself".18 Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409 at 426 applied in Re M, above n 12, at [19].[50] As against Mr Stanley's heartfelt intentions he offered no evidence todemonstrate the complete turnaround which the High Court, for example in Re Owen,accepted as demonstrating the candidate's reformation was complete.19[51] I cannot view Mr Stanley's serious lapses in judgement so as to lead him overa period of 40 years to drink and drive as entirely historical or that he would notendanger what he has achieved by a return to that conduct.[52] Mr Stanley said his "official statement before this Court" is that he feelsdisgraced. As against his apparent abstinence, Mr Stanley continues to manifest atendency to place blame elsewhere for his past convictions and to resist that they maypoint to a problem with alcohol. When asked whether the convictions over the spanof his adult life might give reasonable cause for concern that he had an alcohol problemMr Stanley considered that it depended on which convictions were being discussed;some people might consider the convictions indicated a problem but his referees didnot and whatever issues were involved had been addressed. Mr Stanley said "theremay have been an alcohol problem at some stage. I question early stages of maybe adependency, myself. That was never confirmed".[53] Mr Stanley was adamant the NZLS had been subjective and did not ask theright questions. The issue of his remorse, he said, was never raised. Mr Stanleyexplained his account of his convictions to the NZLS as an attempt to put everythingin context and that he was not asked to talk about remorse. I asked Mr Stanley if heaccepted Mr Gwilliam's submission that he was putting forward a plea in mitigationto the NZLS and Mr Stanley accepted that as being "right on the mark". I asked if hethought a plea in mitigation, in response to the NZLS's queries, and in the context ofhis application, was an appropriate response. Mr Stanley said:The answer to that is probably no but they never asked me any questionsrelating to how I felt about these EBAs. They just said, can you tell us aboutthese EBAs. They didn't ask me how I felt about them. If they'd have said,"Did you suffer any remorse?" We may not be here today. I don't know.19 Re Owen, above n 16, at [37].[54] When I put to Mr Stanley that in the context in which the NZLS was asking itsquestions he might have thought it was natural to volunteer how he felt about, orregarded, the convictions Mr Stanley said: "[w]ell it wasn't the question they askedme".[55] The following expression of remorse is contained in Mr Stanley's affidavit:I am extremely remorseful for this offending although I would note that inrespect of the 2002 and 2007 convictions there were in each of those casesspecial circumstances such that I was not disqualified from driving andreceived a fine only.[56] I asked Mr Stanley if he could see that it appeared to be qualified. Mr Stanleyaccepted it appeared to be qualified but went on to emphasise the NZLS had becomeconfused because it had failed to see the difference between a conviction as a result oftaking "Hospital Linctus" and "lunch over a couple of bottles of wine".[57] In respect of the 2014 conviction (involving a blood alcohol reading of141 milligrams) Mr Stanley maintains his blood was taken illegally but accepts he wasguilty "because the Court has ruled that and I will accept the decision of that Court".In answer to Mr Collins' question as to whether Mr Stanley accepted also the bloodalcohol reading of 141 milligrams, Mr Stanley said he did not know. Although heaccepted he was well over.[58] In terms of Mr Stanley's description of the high level of police scrutiny in theHutt roading system and his response to the NZLS that he was "hard done by"Mr Stanley maintained he "was hard done by". Mr Stanley went on to say he thoughtthat explanation to the NZLS was not relevant. He was not giving excuses; he didwrong; he accepts that and he was being totally honest which is a requirement ofadmission to the bar.[59] I had difficulty with Mr Stanley's explanation of his offending for thefollowing reasons:(a) Mr Stanley characterises his responses to the NZLS as honest attemptsto provide the context the NZLS appeared to be seeking instead ofgiving excuses.(b) When the Practice Approval Committee gave Mr Stanley anopportunity to consider and respond to its interview notes Mr Stanley,in his response, spoke of his law studies and "especially ProfessorSpiller's ethics paper" as helping him understand his actions. When itwas put to him in cross-examination that he had offended twice sincegaining that insight Mr Stanley's answer concerned me. He referred,for the second time in evidence, to his conviction for failing to stopbeing "by the JPs". When earlier asked about his failure to stop for apolice vehicle, leading to the conviction in 2013 for failing to stop whenfollowed by red/blue flashing lights, Mr Stanley said it was heard byJPs. He said he technically complied with the law because he did stop.Mr Stanley said if he had stopped where the police vehicle expectedhim to stop it would have been dangerous and so he stopped around thecorner. But the officer "wasn't happy and so I got $300 and we calledit a day". Mr Stanley's references to the matter being heard by JPs, andbeing convicted by JPs and his entire explanation for the convictionstruck me as dismissive.(c) Likewise, in respect of the 2007 conviction, Mr Stanley describedhimself as being "convicted and discharged". Mr Collins put toMr Stanley that with his knowledge of the criminal law he wasconvicted. Faced with the unavoidable truth of the record, Mr Stanleywould go only so far as to agree it was "deemed a conviction".(d) In similar vein when Mr Stanley was questioned about his first excessbreath alcohol conviction at age 24, he accepted it was totally his fault;"it was totally my fault trying to help someone else out but that was juststupid". Mr Stanley explained he had a friend who was intoxicated.Mr Stanley took him home and on the way he was stopped. He addedthat with the hindsight of 40 years he should have left the car where itwas. That is self-evident but I found Mr Stanley's description ofwhat he did wrong to be consistent with his portrayal of himself asthe innocent party throughout. Mr Stanley articulates theacknowledgements he knows are required (of fault, or error, orremorse) but his portrayal of himself as having being caught out tryingto do the right thing (such as stopping at a safe place but the Policebeing unhappy with that) and taking the moral high ground leaves mewith little confidence about the future.[60] Mr Stanley's referee, Mr Richardson, spoke of the "substantial andfundamental steps" that Mr Stanley had taken to avoid repetition of his offending.When asked to explain the substantial and fundamental steps Mr Stanley's responsewas that he has "given it away". Mr Stanley proposes to rely on willpower and self-discipline and a desire not to disgrace himself further before his family. As I havesaid, I accept Mr Stanley is sincere in his intentions but willpower and self-disciplinehave not served him well in the recent past. I put to one side that the trial he isparticipating in apparently requires him not to drink. At some point the trial will cometo an end.[61] Mr Stanley's evidence is that he has "zero tolerance for alcohol and that he hasnot had a drink in four years". But he accepts he drank at his son's wedding even if itwas only one drink and a toast in celebration of marrying his son. It is telling, I think,that on the one hand Mr Stanley declared himself to be completely alcohol free overthe past four years but he will find occasions to excuse himself from his resolution notto drink. There is no evidence of support of any description to assist Mr Stanley adhereto his self-imposed abstinence nor indeed even any recognition he may have aproblem.[62] Mr Stanley's conviction at age 60 for drink-driving followed completion of hislaw degree when he presumably anticipated seeking admission to the profession. Yeteven that goal did not deter this behaviour which was repetitive of past behaviour. ButI am required to look forward not look back.[63] Looking forward I am unpersuaded that the lapse which the 2014 convictionsignifies can be relegated to the past and that the frailties which that conviction reflectsare spent and can be safely ignored. Mr Stanley's answers to questions during thehearing provided me with very little confidence that he could be safely accredited bythe High Court to the public to be entrusted with their business and private affairs.20Mr Stanley's official statement is that he feels disgraced. I accept that. But it does notdisplace the disquiet which Mr Stanley's responses, to questions put to him, created.[64] I have rehearsed the evidence at some length. I have done so because it isimportant that Mr Stanley understands the reasons for the very real reservations whichI hold and why his application has not been successful. But the fact his applicationwas unsuccessful on this occasion does not mean an application will inevitably fail onanother occasion.Conclusion[65] Mr Stanley has not established he is a reformed person. I have found hisassertions of reform to be unpersuasive. Mr Stanley resists any suggestion he mayhave an alcohol problem yet points to his self-imposed abstinence as being thesubstantial step which demonstrates there will be no further offending. Mr Stanleyproposes to rely only on willpower and self-discipline when, manifestly, this hasconsistently failed him over a period of decades including into mature adulthood. Iaccept Mr Collins' submission that the peril for the legal profession is that Mr Stanleywill reoffend and bring the profession into disrepute. Further, I hold the view that thepublic generally, and members of the profession, would not regard Mr Stanley as aperson of such integrity, probity and trustworthiness as to be a suitable candidate foradmission.21Result[66] The application is refused._____________________________Karen Clark JSolicitors:Main Street Legal Ltd, Upper Hutt for ApplicantNew Zealand Law Society, Wellington for Respondent20 Re Lundon, above n 9, at 657–658.21 At 657–658.