Long time readers or this website may recall the saga of sexual pest solicitor Owen Maldwyn Hughes.
Hughes was taken to Court for sexual harassment of a Junior Solicitor and single mum named Catherine Mia Hill, who worked under him in his now defunct firm Beesley & Hughes.
Hughes lacked the insight to settle, which resulted in him losing the case and having devastating findings made after a trial.
His conduct included making the following comments to her:
“My feelings towards you have grown”,
“it meant a lot to me not just professionally that you have come into my life”
“it was so nice you trusting me with your own case”
“it is clear we both like each other personally and well, you know a lot of relationship (sic) started in the work environment something like 60% plus according to a report on the ABC”.
On a work trip to Sydney, Hughes was dressed in a singlet and boxer shorts only, lying on a mattress in the room Hill was supposed to sleep in that evening until she found him there. The next morning, after her shower, she again found him lying on the same mattress. On both occasions he asked for a hug after being asked to leave, and she reluctantly complied.
There was also the relentless sending of inappropriate emails to Ms Hill, including 7 such emails in one day.
Judge Salvatore Vasta was unimpressed with Hughes and rejected his evidence where it conflicted with Hill’s, finding he “tried to obfuscate matters a number of times and often refused to answer direct questions” and “provided two ludicrous and bizarre explanations as to why he entered [Hill]’s room on two occasions during their trip to Sydney”.
Hughes was undeterred by this loss, and kept digging a hole for himself by appealing on the ground that he was actually a modern Mr Darcy.
Perram J rejected this ground of appeal with the following observation:
“I reject the submission of Senior Counsel for the Appellant that these were the actions of a Mr Darcy. The facts of this case are about as far from a Jane Austen novel as it is possible to be.“
With respect to complaints about the emotive language used by Judge Vasta in his primary judgement, Perram J held that such language was appropriate in the circumstances of the case:
“there is no doubt that some of the language of the trial judge is strong but this merely reflects the quality of the Appellant’s own behaviour. There are cases which call for strong language especially where one person has so seriously wronged another. The trial judge’s palpable outrage at the Appellant was justified by the Appellant’s conduct not only in harassing the Respondent but in the deplorable manner in which he conducted his defence.”
In relation to the argument of a lack of evidence of harm to justify the award for aggravated damages, Perram J made the following prescient observations:
“To deal thereafter with his menacing behaviour, as her employer, must have been a terrible experience for a woman in her position. To have suffered the final indignity of watching the Appellant divulge her confidential information in his own defence, in gross dereliction of his professional duty, can only have made her realise that she was in the ring with a disturbed, self-centred and venomous man. He had threatened that he knew how to ‘fight the good fight’ and he carried that threat out even to the extent of conduct which must surely soon end, if it has not already ended, his career as a lawyer“
As a result, the appeal was dismissed. Hughes was subsequently ordered to pay indemnity costs of that appeal.
Following his appeal misadventure, Hughes was handed a declaration and reprimand by the NSW Legal Services Commissioner on 24 November 2021. Interestingly, the finding was merely one of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct.
Hughes then applied for a practising certificate. He was refused by the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales last year. The finding this time was that he was “Not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate”.
Perram J would no doubt have agreed. At least female Junior Solicitors in NSW can breathe a sigh of relief.
Author adminPosted on Categories Legal profession, Professional discipline