The charges alleged that Mr Raistrick was convicted in the District Court of a serious offence; that, in April 2018, he failed to give notice to the Queensland Law Society (QLS) that he had been charged with two serious offences (one of which was not pursued); that, in early 2021, he failed to give notice to QLS that he had been convicted of a serious offence; that, in early 2021, while holding a practising certificate, he failed to give notice of a show cause event; and that in early 2021, he failed to give a written statement to QLS explaining why, despite the show cause event of having been convicted, he continued to be a fit and proper person to practice.

Mr Raistrick admitted the five charges. LSC contended that the first charge amounted to professional misconduct and that the four other charges constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct.

On the first two charges, he had argued that his criminal proceedings and work obligations meant that he “did not turn his mind sufficiently” to his reporting obligations, for which he expressed regret.

On the final three charges, he submitted that his immediate imprisonment prevented him from reporting but added that he had admitted to the allegations long before the discipline application was filed, and he referenced the significant personal and professional consequences of his conviction upon him.

Mr Raistrick was convicted in February 2021 of indecent treatment of a child under 12 years of age, committed sometime between 28 September 2017 and 3 October 2017, in an offence described by the sentencing judge at the time as “brazen and opportunistic”.

The conviction resulted in a 12-month jail sentence, suspended after serving six months.

In consideration of the charges brought by LSC, QCAT judicial member Peter Lyons KC (assisted by practitioner panel member Annette Bradfield and lay member Julie Cork) reflected, in a decision delivered late last week, that Mr Raistrick “has made it clear” that he accepts responsibility for his conduct and that there was no suggestion of any similar offences either before or after the matter for which he was convicted.

VIEW ALL

“From a very early stage, the respondent indicated his acceptance of the allegations against him, and his willingness to co-operate in these proceedings. He appeared in person at the hearing, and his conduct at the hearing was consistent with his earlier conduct in relation to the application.”

“These are promising signs, but fall short of showing sufficient rehabilitation to overcome the effect of the initial conduct and conviction,” the member noted.

At this stage, Mr Lyons determined, Mr Raistrick is not a fit and proper person to practice, and the conduct the subject of the first charge (being convicted of a serious offence) was found to be professional misconduct.

The second charge (failing to give notice of being charged with a serious offence) was deemed by QCAT to be the most serious of the remaining charges.

“That failure continued for a substantial period of time. In correspondence, the respondent stated that he understood he was only obliged to report matters having potential to affect his conduct as a legal professional. It is troubling that he did not understand his reporting obligations. However, he went [on] to say that if he is incorrect in his analysis, he fully accepted the dereliction in his reporting duty. This matter is considered to be one of some seriousness, because of the ongoing failure to report,” the member espoused.

The other charges, which “occurred in the shadow” of Mr Raistrick’s trial and imprisonment, were deemed serious but less concerning.

The four remaining charges each warranted a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct, Mr Lyons held.

Accordingly, Mr Raistrick is to be struck from the roll, and he has been ordered to pay costs.

The case citation is Legal Services Commissioner v Desacola [2023] QCAT 271.