Hawke's Bay Lawyers Standards Committee v Sacha Maria Beacham

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: D F Clarkson,Mr G McKenzie,Mr K Raureti,Mr T Simmonds,Mr W Smith
• Judgment Date: 12 October 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] NZLCDT 29
• Docket Number: LCDT 024/11
• Court: Lawyers and Conveyancers’ Disciplinary Tribunal
• Date: 12 October 2012

IN THE MATTER OF the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

BETWEEN

Hawke's Bay Lawyers Standards Committee

Applicant

and

Sacha Maria Beacham

Lawyer of Hastings

[2012] NZLCDT 29

CHAIR

Judge D F Clarkson

MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL

Mr G McKenzie

Mr K Raureti

Mr T Simmonds

Mr W Smith

LCDT 024/11

LCDT 024/12

NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

Decision of the NZ Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal as to penalty to be imposed on barrister who was convicted of drink drive offences and resisting and obstruction of police in execution of their duty — whether barrister's behaviour justified striking off or suspension; consideration of ‘misconduct’ in s7 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.

APPEARANCES

Mr P Collins for the Applicant

Ms S Beacham in person

DECISION OF NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL ON PENALTY

Introduction

1 The practitioner pleaded guilty to three charges brought by the Hawke's Bay Lawyers Standards Committee.

• (a) Charge dated 4 December 2011 in LCDT 24/11:

  • Hawke's Bay Lawyers Standards Committee charges Sacha Maria Beacham, Barrister, of Hastings, under s.241(d) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, she having been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment and the conviction reflects on her fitness to practise, or tends to bring her profession into disrepute.

  • Particulars

  • (a) On 19 August 2011, in the District Court at Auckland, she was convicted and sentenced for an offence against s.56(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (“LTA”), namely that she was driving a motor vehicle with excess breath alcohol, in circumstances where she had been convicted on two previous occasions for relevant offences under the LTA, on 27 July 2002 (excess blood alcohol) and 13 October 2007 (excess breath alcohol);

  • (b) Her conviction under s.56(1) LTA was punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding

  • (c) In the event, she was sentenced to a term of disqualification from driving for one year and one day and fined $1,200 and ordered to pay Court costs of $132.89; and

  • (d) The conviction reflects on her fitness to practise and tends to bring the legal profession into disrepute.

• (b) Charge 1 in LCDT 24/12, dated 4 September 2012:

  • The Hawke's Bay Lawyers' Standards Committee charges Sacha Maria Beacham, formerly a barrister of Hastings, under s.241(d) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006; she having been convicted of offences punishable by imprisonment and those convictions reflect on her fitness to practise, or tend to bring her profession into disrepute.

  • Particulars

  • (a) On 22 June 2012, in the District Court at Hastings, she was convicted on two charges under s.23(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981:

    • (i) That she resisted a Police Constable acting in the execution of her duty; and

    • (ii) That she intentionally obstructed a (separate) Police Constable acting in the execution of her duty;

  • (b) Convictions under s.23(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 are punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000;

  • (c) In the event, Ms Beacham was fined $200 on each conviction; and

  • (d) The convictions reflect on her fitness to practice and tends to bring the legal profession into disrepute.

  • (c) Charge 2 in LCDT 24/12, dated 4 September 2012:

  • The Hawke's Bay Lawyers' Standards Committee charges Sacha Maria Beacham, formerly a barrister of Hastings, with misconduct, including misconduct under ss.7(1)(b)(ii) & 241(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.

  • Particulars

  • (a) In the early hours of 31 December 2011, whilst a passenger in a car in which the driver was the subject of Police roadside excess breath alcohol procedures, she was abusive and obstructive towards the Police Officers attending on the driver, to the point where she was restrained and taken into custody, and arrested, which she resisted;

  • (b) Whilst in custody at the Napier Police Station she continued to conduct herself in an abusive and obstructive manner towards the Police Officers in attendance;

  • (c) During the course of a Police body search, whilst in custody, she behaved in an indecent and offensive manner towards the Police Officers in attendance; and

  • (d) At the time of these events she held a practising certificate as a barrister;

  • And she is thereby guilty of misconduct.

2 Before the Tribunal was the evidence of seven witnesses. Ms Beacham did not seek to cross examine any of the witnesses.

3 In the course of the hearing Ms Beacham was cross-examined by counsel for the Standards Committee and questioned by the Tribunal. Submissions were received from both parties and the Tribunal reserved its decision.

Background

4 The particulars of the offending are set out in the above charges. This practitioner was admitted as a barrister and solicitor on 9 September 2005 and over the past few years has been practising as a barrister sole in the Hawke's Bay region.

5 Over the past 10 years, she has been convicted on three occasions for drink driving offences. The first of these occurred while she was a student and the second two (the last of which is the subject of Charge 1) have occurred since she was admitted as a practitioner. The only information the practitioner has provided about her alcohol related behaviour is a statement to the Standards Committee which she made on 1 September 2011, supported by a letter from her counsellor. In that statement she acknowledged that:

“… clearly problematic use of alcohol is an automatic factor of the repeat offending. My offending is also a reflection of not keeping my emotions in check in terms of my personal life …”

6 Notwithstanding that acknowledgement and the acknowledgement that alcohol has caused significant problems in her personal life and:

” … subsequently in my professional life as a result of having incurred multiple convictions for the same type of offending.”

she did not consider herself to be “alcohol dependent”. At that time, she stated to the Standards Committee that she had been motivated to seek help and listed therapeutic intervention she had received including anger management, attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous and cognitive therapy. She went on to say:

“Since my offending in January 2011 I have made a concerted decision to remove alcohol from my life and maintain abstinence given my use of alcohol… has had a detrimental impact on my life at all levels…

I have refrained from drinking since the incident in January. I intend to remain abstinent with the support of on-going therapy … I know I will not survive another mistake like this given the extensive penalties I have suffered as a consequence of my offending by virtue of my position as a lawyer, well before I was sentenced at the Auckland District Court.”

7 Later she said to the Committee:

“I am fully prepared to comply with any reasonable undertaking that the Committee may consider appropriate to address this matter and to provide the Law Society with ongoing reassurance that I am a fit and proper person to continue practising.”

8 Ms Beacham also made the point in that submission to the Standards Committee that her behaviour was completely at odds with her professional behaviour and level of competence. She reminded the Standards Committee that there had never been any complaints against her performance as a practitioner.

9 Indeed at the hearing Ms Beacham repeated this submission and supplemented it by references from well satisfied clients over recent years.

10 Unfortunately only a few months following those assurances, Ms Beacham once again offended, as a result of alcohol consumption in a way which is viewed very seriously by the Tribunal. It is this set of circumstances which set out in Charges 2 and 3. The Tribunal has evidence from the five police officers who were involved in observing Ms Beacham's behaviour on the night of 30 December 2011 and early...