Legal Profession Board complaint against …. who was that?

We invited the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania to respond to our criticism (published June 11, 2021) of its dismissal of the complaint against Stuart Wright, Meaghan Vass’ lawyer at the Sue Neill-Fraser appeal (March 1-3, 2021) and await their response. In the meantime, we publish Wright’s reply to the LPB regarding the Complaint. Trick question: who is the complaint against? 

Readers can make their own assessment of the lawyer’s response.

LPB complaint form as filled in by Andy Brown on behalf of Meaghan Vass (March 9, 2021)

Lawyer’s first name
Lawyer’s surname
Place of work (full name)
Bold lawyers

Brief explanation of their role…

He was my friends appointed lawyer

In your words, what is your complaint?

I was a support person for meaghan vass as she had to give evidence at the sue neill fraser appeal. Firstly she was promised that the names of those mentioned as committing the crime would be supressed. It was all over the internet within hours.
Then he put in the supression for media to retract and got supression for next day but it was too late by then. It was the only thing she and i asked. Obviously for her safety.

Presented in LPB documents as follows:
The Complaint alleges the Practitioner:
Failed to ensure that the names of the parties the Practitioner’s client would identify as being involved in a crime would be suppressed when she was giving evidence, in order to protect his client’s safety and the integrity of his client’s evidence

From Stuart Wright’s response to the complaint (March 19, 2021)
3 (a) Ms Brown’s complaint does not disclose which legal practitioner supposedly “promised” that a suppression order would be made or when. It is not reasonably open for a complaint to be capable of being established as misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct and in the absence of the connection between the maker of the promise and practitioner or firm the subject of the complaint. *

(b) Further, I respectfully submit that Ms Brown otherwise has no standing to make a complaint of that nature and the complaint should be dismissed for that reason also. **

(c) Lastly, I note that there are matters that I am able to brig to your attention that ought, in my view, to be sufficient to justify the dismissal of the complaint, but which may arguably be confidential or privileged. I would welcome the opportunity to put those matters to you, in the event that their potential confidentiality or privilege is maintained by their not being disclosed to the complainant. ***

* The LPB appears to have been satisfied that the Complaint was against Stuart Wright himself; no mention is made in the LPB’s Consideration of any uncertainty about it.

** The LPB addressed that as follows:
It was contended by the Practitioner that the Complainant had no standing to bring a complaint because she was not his client. The Board is satisfied that the Complainant had standing to bring the complaint. Section 427(1) of the Act provides that ‘A complaint may be made about the conduct of an Australian legal practitioner by any person.’ Accordingly, there was no bar to the Complainant complaining about the conduct of the Practitioner, even though she was not his client.

*** Andy Brown complained (April 7, 2021): “i think it’s unfair if Mr Wright is allowed to give information that cannot be shared regarding this complaint. If it’s relevant then both sides should be privy to all the information or it not be allowed.” The LPB made no mention of this matter in its Consideration.

From Andy Brown’s email to the LPB re Wright’s response (March 30, 2021)
Firstly Mr Wright didn’t seem to have any issues in corresponding with me before and during the appeal re Meaghan Vass. I am always able to make contact with Meaghan and will always support her.

I am able to involve Meaghan if necessary and change the complaint from being lodged by me to her if that would make Mr Wright feel better about things. Meaghan knows about this complaint  and is willing to do what she needs to in order for it to be resolved.

I cannot understand how Mr Wright wants to know which staff member of his told us that Meaghans evidence would be suppressed when it was him. He is the lawyer that was appointed to Meaghan for this appeal and it was his job to ensure her safety which he so obviously didn’t do.

We were under the impression that he was actually helping Meaghan and taking instruction from her …

Also I received an email from the head reporter from the Hobart Mercury saying he had no idea why there wasn’t any supression and it was a shock that the paper was allowed to print the names but then they had to recant later that evening…

Mr Wright single handedly unravelled that appeal by not protecting his client. He left her no choice but to back peddle on the previous days information and she came across as being no use to the appeal when this is not the case.

NOTE: This article does not deal with the second part of the complaint – regarding Andy Brown being dismissed as a Support Person to Meaghan Vass during Vass giving evidence in a separate witness room.

This entry was posted in Case 01 Sue Neill-Fraser. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Legal Profession Board complaint against …. who was that?

  1. David Smith says:

    We all know that The Tasmanian Police and Legal System is so corrupt and they are so arrogant because they know they are protected by the people in Power. These actions as described show the Tasmanian Government want the Informant Killed – Hope Sue Dies in Prison – It is an offence to threaten Witnesses but who will Police it – Witnesses must be protected or someone will Kill them – Nothing will change until the Tasmanian Streets are filled with Demonstrators demanding Truth and Accountability – Those people responsible for keeping an Innocent Woman in Prison are held accountable. Those people who threatened a Witness – Many People have direct evidence of Corruption and Illegal Practices of Police and Government – but where do you go -The Integrity Commission are very Corrupt and cover up all illegal actions by these People. For change – Demand it. Demonstrate – go to your Politicians and demand answers.

  2. Robert Greenshields says:

    Tasmania is not the only state where there is what I believe to be active collusion and corruption between policing services and lawyers, NSW has it’s fair share of venal public servants and private practice aspirants doing very well too, thank you very much. The North West, and in and around what is referred to as the country music capital and surrounding areas of the state, has its own cowards who embrace the photo shoots and local publicity, but are no where to be seen when any assaults on the accepted status quo of criminal practices are bought to the fore front. Everything from good old fashioned police verbals, to choreographing corroborated evidence, local lawyers like policing officers, are never to be trusted ex cathedra. You are not isolated Robinson Crusoes citizens of Tasmania, far to many residents in every state are being bludgeoned near daily through the exposure of corrupt criminal behaviour by those entrusted to serve and honour citizens and communities. Australia is consistently and continuously regressed and devalued by the exposed cowards behaviour, and then among the culprits who have not got the backbones to confront the venal within their own ranks, there is those who wonder why sections of the broader Australian community have no respect for them as officers of the law, or as individuals in any society. Maintain the faith each and every Oz citizen, who knows and recognises that the harshest of lessons about and around the injustices in life are the best lessons, and the strongest of those citizens never capitulated or reverted to the inadequacies of life as obsequious, cowering, stratified public servants. Keep strong Sue.

  3. Noeline Durovic says:

    Dear Andrew, It appears to me Power and privilege to the citizen was lost to the State of Tasmania; by a Solicitor in Tasmania misleading and acting against his client. 1. Protection to/for his clients safety was high priority – blind Freddy could understand why..Why then did he not act to protect his client.
    2.The citizen traumatised for years by what she saw names three persons that were responsible for what is slated to be a brutal murder.
    3 The citizen knew the force from these men and their associates in that such telling could cost her retribution and maybe even her life if she was known to give evidence against them!
    4. This citizen whilst giving evidence in the Supreme Court of Tasmania received a 100% verbalisation from her Solicitor. A purported assurance of a suppression order of names given under oath..
    5. 100% protected the citizen could with such assurance move forward with her naming of the three on the purported suppression order 100% in place . “Did I understand 100% assurance from Solicitor to his client of that correctly he acted to protect her”?
    Citizen Meaghan Vass was never protected – as apparently no oppression order was uttered or placed up..Headlines next Morning “Sam Did IT” ‘the murder” With that all in mind..Meaghan Vass is now at risk -A serious risk.. Her appointed solicitor from Tasmania..acted blatantly against her wishes and instructions and never 100%..p protected Meagan Vass.
    The solicitor verbaled Meaghan Bass his client verbatim placing her now in serious risk!.

  4. Williambtm says:

    I don’t have any doubts about Ms. Meaghan Vass knowing the whole truth and that she rightly knows how rotten was the bullscitt decision claiming Ms. Sue Neal Fraser had been proven beyond all doubt, yet not a scintilla of effing fact or material evidence.
    Was Tim Ellis still the Tasmania DPP, then every following murder trial from the time of the Sue Neal -Fraser case murder trial… would demand a cause for a thorough re-examination.
    Arguably the DPP has such an expansive amount of DPP discretion that had effectively permitted the Director of prosecutions that he could create a cause to – allegedly -pervert the course of justice.

    That “discretion” had been so forcefully relied upon by the DPP, which did amply demonstrate that his power of discretion had in itself been stretched way beyond its boundaries during the trial of Ms. Sue Neal Fraser.
    That discretion should not have contributed its overreach during the carriage of the original murder trial, once again, nil whatsoever fact evidence had been obtained, mostly because Ms. Fraser did not murder Bob Ellis.

    Have the State’s police pursued the persons that know far more about the Sue Neal-Fraser trumped-up charge of murder?

    For the Tasmania police to lodge that wholly unproven charge against Ms. Fraser is something that the State’s Police Executive must never forget.
    The lodging of such a serious charge of murder… without a shred of evidence is indeed a whole new criteria in how that lodged charge could be permitted?
    In my opinion, that was not a fine day’s work by Tasmania’s police.

  5. Geraldine Allan says:

    Am I reading fact or fiction, is my first impression?
    In writing that I respect that Andrew, you wouldn’t publish unless you check the veracity of matters.
    I’m truly gobsmacked 😶, at what seems me blatant obfuscation and LPBT acceptance of reasons/response!!!!

  6. owen allen says:

    All I can say is. This is Tasmania.
    Evil. Liars at every level. Corrupted even at minor social issues.
    I have evidence in Case Study One.
    I can identify a corrupt Tasmania Police Detective who assaulted me; in Case Study Two.
    The Tasmanian Way.
    It is time the media dug deep; but the media protect Tasmania.
    Only we can expose it and bring on change; and if it means Cooee International; so be it. Sorry guys. give them up or go go down with them.
    Thats my dream. Owen who they stole my life and sent me mad.
    Anger is good when controlled, Tasmania is Hell on Earth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.