Carlito Jose Desacola

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

The respondent, a Queensland legal practitioner, was convicted in the District Court of indecent treatment of a child under 12, and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended after six months. He also failed to notify the Queensland Law Society of the charges, the conviction, a show cause event, and failed to provide a written statement of fitness. The Tribunal found Charge 1 amounted to professional misconduct and Charges 2-5 amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct. Applying Ziems and Rodda, the Tribunal held the conduct and conviction demonstrated the respondent was not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice, principally due to the adverse impact on the reputation and standing of the profession. The Tribunal recommended removal from the local roll and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs on the standard basis. No express finding of dishonesty was made.

Duties found breached:

• Personal probity and fitness to practise
• Self-report to the regulator
• No baseless or threatened misconduct report

Aggravating factors:

• Serious criminal offence involving sexual assault of an 11 year old child in the presence of another child
• Conduct described by sentencing Judge as brazen and opportunistic
• Ongoing failure to report over a substantial period (Charge 2)
• Failure to understand reporting obligations
• Adverse impact on reputation and standing of the legal profession

Mitigating factors:

• Admitted all five charges from an early stage
• Co-operated in the proceedings and appeared in person
• Accepted responsibility for his conduct
• No suggestion of similar offences before or after
• Diagnosed with Atypical Mood Disorder and generalised anxiety disorder causing severe psychiatric disability
• Later failures occurred in the shadow of trial and imprisonment
• Offending towards the lower end of scale for this kind of offending
• More than five years since the offence was committed
• Significant adverse effects already suffered (loss of practising certificate, adverse publicity)