Tabled Paper - Parliament of Western Australia

5.2 MATTERS DISMISSED OR NOT TAKEN FURTHER
The Committee may dismiss a matter without completing an investigation in certain
situations. This power of summary dismissal is used, for example, when complaints are
made outside the 6 year time limitation, when they have previously been dismissed after
investigation or, if the complaint is misconceived or lacking in substance. Of the
complaints (which does not include conduct investigations) dismissed by the Committee,
12.5% were summarily dismissed and the remainder were dismissed following a full
investigation.
In nearly one quarter of the matters (21%) dismissed or not taken further, the Committee
expressed concern to the practitioner about an aspect of the practitioner's conduct. Such
expressions of concern are generally used by the Committee when the conduct of the
practitioner is not such that it would amount to unsatisfactory professional conduct or
professional misconduct but is still of some concern to the Committee. The Committee
does so with a view to raising professional standards and preventing such conduct by the
practitioner in the future.
Some examples of expressions of concern
Case Study 1
Duty of courtesy
The complainants complained that the practitioner spoke to them in an offensive manner,
and provided a witness statement of a third party in support of the allegation. The
practitioner denied the allegation. The Committee considered that it was possible the
practitioner made the alleged statement and spoke to the complainants in an offensive
manner. The Committee noted, however, that at the time of the incident the
complainants had made a serious allegation against the practitioner of misleading the
Court. The Committee considered that in the circumstances, the practitioner's judgment
may have been clouded when he responded to the complainants. The Committee also
noted the antagonism between the parties, and between the complainants and the
practitioner's client.
The Committee resolved that the matter be taken no further in the circumstances, but
expressed its concern to the practitioner about the conduct complained of in the incident.
In the Committee's view, to swear at another person and speak aggressively to them in a
professional setting would not be an appropriate way of dealing with that person
regardless of the circumstances. The practitioner was reminded that practitioners have a
professional obligation to act with courtesy at all times, and that practitioners are
expected to exercise restraint even where an exchange may be confrontational. The
Committee resolved to warn the practitioner to avoid any future conduct of this kind.