LLH201 - Legal Research Public Trust Office Assignment

Assignment Task

Public Trust

Two people have held the position of PT during Aden’s administration. Dr Faust Falso held the position from the start of the administration until his resignation in September 2022. Ms Nova Fidel has held the position since.

Ms Armstrong is extremely dissatisfied with decisions the PT, through the Public Trust Office (‘PTO’), has made about Aden’s financial matters during the tenure of both Dr Falso and Ms Fidel. Ms Armstrong’s concerns are:

• Aden’s parents died in the car accident in which he was injured, leaving him an inheritance including an unencumbered family home and about $1.5 million dollars in cash. Aden is also entitled to a significant insurance payout as compensation for the accident, although the insurer has not yet paid. On the PT’s appointment as administrator, the PTO immediately sold the home. The PTO advised Ms Armstrong it was necessary to sell the home to pay the costs of Aden’s ongoing care. Ms Armstrong does not believe it was necessary because of the available $1.5 million and expected insurance payout. Aden loved the home and has expressed regrets about its sale as he had hoped to return to live there in the future. Ms Armstrong also believes the home was a good investment for Aden.
• Before selling the family home, the PTO disposed of all its contents including the personal items of Aden and his parents. The disposal was without Ms Armstrong’s knowledge and against Aden’s wishes. The PTO will not provide Ms Armstrong with any further information about the disposal.
• The PTO invested the $900,000 proceeds of sale of the family home and the $1.5 million cash in investment funds it operates. The PTO charges fees for the investment and takes a portion of the earnings to fund its continued operations. Ms Armstrong believes much better investment options are available in the market.
• The PTO charges fees to act as Aden’s administrator. Ms Armstrong believes the fees are exorbitant.

Due to her concerns, Ms Armstrong joined Accountability Now (‘AN’). AN is a group of about 50 people in Queensland with similar concerns about PTO decisions on financial matters for their family or friends under PT administration. AN also includes two ‘whistleblower’ former employees of the PTO. AN campaigns to raise public awareness about its members’ concerns and lobbies the Queensland government to take action to address the concerns. 

The producer of a show aired on Australian free-to-air TV, called Justice Dispatched, has approached AN to participate in an episode critiquing the PTO. The producer is seeking real life stories of concerns about poor decisions on financial matters made by the PTO. The producer has asked Ms Armstrong and other AN members to tell the stories of their loved ones and share their concerns in interviews to be broadcast in the episode. The producers want to use the names and images of the people under administration, including Aden. They believe naming and showing the people will give greater effect to the broadcast, making it more relatable to the audience. Ms Armstrong and a number of other members are keen to participate in furtherance of AN’s campaign. However, AN is not sure it is lawful for their members to do so. The PTO has advised AN that its members will be in legal trouble if they raise their concerns publicly because of the guardianship and administration ‘gag law’.

Whilst Dr Falso was still PT, AN uncovered what it believed to be corruption by him and complained about it to the Crime and Corruption Commission Queensland (‘CCC’). The CCC, on its own initiative commenced an investigation into the compliant in January 2021. On finalising its investigation in December 2022, the CCC advised the Attorney-General (‘AG’) it had concluded, in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, that no prosecution proceedings would be brought against Dr Falso. During the CCC’s investigation, the AG commenced a separate investigation into possible disciplinary action against Dr Falso based on the complaint. The AG investigation finished when he resigned as PT, without any disciplinary action taken. There is now no prospect of prosecution proceedings or disciplinary action against him.

The CCC, again on its own initiative, prepared a report informed by its investigation entitled: ‘Workplace Practices to Minimise the Risk of Corruption: Lessons Learned from an Investigation into the Public Trustee’. The CCC has provided AN with a copy of only the introduction to the report on a strictly confidential basis. The introduction is reproduced below.

Introduction

The CCC’s corruption functions include raising standards of integrity and conduct in units of public administration. In performing the functions, the CCC has a lead role in building the capacity of units of public administration to prevent cases of corruption, and an overriding responsibility to promote public confidence in the integrity of units of public administration. This report is issued in furtherance of this function, role and responsibility.

This report outlines recommendations for workplace practices to minimise the risk of corruption in all units of public administration. All Ministers and senior public sector employees are urged to read it closely. The recommendations relate to ethics, complaints management, and codes of conduct for standards of behaviour.

Although the recommendations are relevant to workplace practices in all units of public administration, they are based on the CCC’s investigation into a compliant about corruption by the former Public Trustee, Dr Falso. No finding of corruption was made in the investigation. However, there are many lessons to be learned from serious deficiencies in workplace practices at the Public Trust Office whilst he held the position of Public Trustee. The recommendations in this report are based on these lessons.

This report also provides a summary of the CCC’s investigation into, and conclusions on, the compliant about corruption by Dr Falso. The public release of the summary via this report is intended to respond to the extensive media scrutiny of the compliant. It demonstrates to the public that the CCC acts on corruption complaints and the public can, accordingly, have confidence in the integrity of units of public administration.

Ms Armstrong and AN are keen for the CCC to publicly release the report to further AN’s campaign. The CCC informed AN it intends to publicly release the report for the reasons outlined in the report’s introduction. In September 2023, the CCC wrote to Dr Falso’s lawyers giving him an opportunity to make submissions about the proposed adverse comments about him in the report prior to its release. The CCC’s letter included the final draft Report. In January this year, the lawyers responded, advising he chooses not to make submissions but objects to its public release. His lawyers argue there is no legal basis for public release.

Ms Armstrong has asked me to advise:

• whether it is lawful for her to participate in the interview to be broadcast in the episode of Justice Dispatched as proposed by the show producers; and
• whether the CCC can lawfully publicly release the report.

Please research the answers to these questions to enable me to advise her. If the interview or release of the Report is lawful only with limits or if certain steps are first followed, please identify the limits and steps, and advise whether they are or can be satisfied in the circumstances outlined in this memorandum.

To be clear as regards question 1.1 above:

• I only need you to research whether it is lawful for Ms Armstrong to participate in the interview as outlined. You can assume there is some validity to each of Ms Armstrong’s concerns regarding decisions the PTO has made about Aden’s financial matters. You do not need to research the validity of the concerns or any remedy or relief in respect of the concerns.
• I only need you to consider lawfulness based on the guardianship and administration ‘gag law’. I do not need you to consider any other possible basis of unlawfulness.

To be clear as regards question 1.2 above:

• I only need you to research whether the CCC can lawfully publicly release the report. You can assume the CCC and AG investigations were valid and lawful in all respects, and the CCC and AG afforded Dr Falso procedural fairness in all respects, including in giving Dr Falso an opportunity to make submissions about proposed adverse comments about him in the report. You do not need research the validity and lawfulness of the investigations or procedural fairness for Dr Falso.
• I do not need you to consider any basis for release of the report under the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld).

NUISANCE PHONE CALLS

In 2019, Aden’s personal mobile telephone number was entered on the Do Not Call Register. It remains on the Register. However, over the last 12 months, he has received regular telephone calls to the number from Voice Calls Pty Ltd (‘VC’). The calls are to sell disability services provided by another company, Your Strides Pty Ltd (‘YS’). 

The calls are always around Aden’s lunchtime on weekdays, but never public holidays. The callers are always polite and follow the same script. They introduce themselves by name and as calling from VC on behalf of YS. They state that the purpose of the call is to offer Aden a good deal on purchasing YS disability services.

Aden has told Ms Armstrong he is not interested in YS disability services, but finds it hard to communicate his disinterest to the callers. As he tries to tell the caller he is not interested and does not want to keep talking on the call, the caller talks over him to continue the sales pitch. He ends up spending 5 to 10 minutes on each call. Ms Armstrong has noticed Aden is aware of the limits on his cognitive ability and, in fear of seeming rude, he ends up being extremely polite. She thinks he is too polite to the callers.

Ms Armstrong researched YS. It is solely owned by Ms Blare, and she is the sole director. When Ms Armstrong contacted Ms Blare to complain about the calls to Aden, Ms Blare responded that YS outsources all its sales marketing calls to VC and, therefore, YS cannot do anything about the calls. Ms Blare suggested Ms Armstrong complain to VC. Ms Blare also commented that she was ‘sick and tired’ of receiving complaints about calls VC made on YS’s behalf.

Ms Armstrong believes YS and Ms Blare, as providers of disability services, should be more sensitive and stop VC making calls to Aden, and based on Ms Blare’s comment, probably also nuisance calls to many other people with disabilities.

Aden cannot just block the number from which the calls are coming on his phone because they always seem to be from different numbers. Also, Ms Armstrong and Aden want to see YS and Ms Blare held accountable for not stopping the calls to Aden and probably others.

This LLH201 – Law has been solved by our PHD Experts at My Uni Paper.