Login
Lawyer loses practising certificate for moves against mother’s hospital
A qualified lawyer without a practising certificate landed in hot water when he attempted to bring a habeas corpus application against a Melbourne hospital that had been treating his mother.
Naomi Neilson
The Supreme Court of Victoria knocked back Ermanno Giurina’s attempt to overturn a finding he represented he was entitled to engage in legal practice and made certain statements to a registry while he did not hold a valid practising certificate.
“As a result, granting an extension of time to the applicant to file an application for leave to appeal would be futile,” they said.
Back in 2016, while Giurina held a volunteer practising certificate, he applied to renew for the following year but was knocked back when the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner found he was not a fit and proper person to hold one. Included in the reasons provided was that Giurina had provided incorrect information on his application.
Despite being told he was a “disqualified person”, Giurina went to the registry of the Supreme Court in January 2018 to file a habeas corpus application against the Royal Melbourne Hospital.
He alleged the hospital refused requests to discharge his mother.
During one of two meetings with the registry, Giurina produced his certificate of admission in the name of Hermann Orlando Giurina and a copy of an “evidentiary certificate” issued by the Victorian Legal Services Board under the name Ermanno Orlando Giurina.
The latter mistakenly recorded he held a volunteer practising certificate.
While the habeas corpus application was not accepted by the registry at that time, Giurina did obtain the seal of the court on a summons to commence the proceedings in February 2018.
Around September 2018, Giurina again applied to the board for a volunteer practising certificate.
In reply, the board said it received information indicating Giurina attended the Supreme Court registry and produced an evidentiary certificate as evidence of his entitlement to practise.
Giurina was charged and found guilty in the Magistrates Court in November 2020. He was fined $5,000, without conviction.
He commenced an appeal in the County Court and again in the Supreme Court, but both were dismissed.
In his grounds of appeal, Giurina claimed the Supreme Court judge erred by failing to find certain findings of fact made by the County Court judge were unreasonable, particularly in relation to the way he had represented he was entitled to engage in legal practice.
He also claimed the Supreme Court judge failed to grant relief on the basis it was unreasonable for the County Court judge to be satisfied he was not a “qualified entity” in circumstances where the County Court judge allegedly failed to consider his submissions.
In rejecting these grounds, Justices Lyons and Orr found Giurina’s submissions were “premised on ignoring any evidence contrary to his own evidence, as well as credit findings against him”.
“His submissions in this court, like the submissions he made before the judge, seek to involve this court in a review of the merits of the County Court judge’s decision under the guise of an evaluation of legal unreasonableness,” they said.
The case is Giurina v McLeay [2024] VSCA 326 (20 December 2024).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
