PETER GEORGE GIUDICE

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

The appellant, a legal practitioner, had prepared and settled an affidavit for his client (charged with child sex offences) which incorrectly stated that bail conditions had been varied to allow him to spend time with the children. After a lengthy procedural history including two earlier appeals, the Court of Appeal held that the SAT majority had erred in finding the appellant was subjectively aware of and consciously disregarded the risk that the statement was false. The respondent conceded ground 1. By consent, the Court granted leave, allowed the appeal, set aside the professional misconduct finding, and substituted a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct, reprimanding the appellant and imposing a $5,000 fine. No dishonesty was found; the statement was expressly noted as not intentionally false.

Duties found breached:

• Uphold public trust in the profession

Mitigating factors:

• The incorrect statement was not intentionally false
• The Tribunal found it was unlikely the appellant knew the statement was false when he settled it
• Lengthy delay - some seven years since the events and over five years since proceedings instituted
• Resolution reached by consent between the parties