Escorted To Admission

A past as a male escort did not bar an applicant for admission by the Queensland Law Society (full opinion linked here.)

KMB (‘the Appellant’) appealed the decision of the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (Queensland) (‘the Board’) to refuse the Appellant’s application for early consideration of suitability for admission to the legal profession.

The Supreme Court of Queensland (‘the Court’) allowed the appeal, and declared that the Appellant’s prior offences did not adversely affect an assessment as to whether the Appellant was a fit and proper person for admission to the legal profession…

In October 2016, the Appellant made an application under the Legal Profession Act 2007  for early assessment as to suitability for admission to the legal profession. The Board refused this application.

The Appellant, now 34 years old,  had disclosed in this application his prior convictions. These convictions were comprised of two counts of unlawful sodomy and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16.

At the time of the offences the Appellant was 24 years old and working as a male escort. On two occasions the Appellant engaged in various sexual acts with a 15 year old boy who had contacted the Appellant.

It was not challenged at trial that the Applicant believed the boy was 16 years of age, and that the Appellant had mistakenly believed this to be the legal age of consent in Queensland.

After his arrest and conviction the Appellant never worked as a male escort again.

The considerations

The Court noted that:

• it is 10 years since the offences were committed;
• the Appellant did not engage in any further work as a male prostitute after he was charged;
• he completed two degrees in music at Griffith University and a degree in law at Queensland University of Technology with first class honours;
• he has worked extensively both on a paid and on a pro bono bases as a professional musician at a very high level; and
• he has worked as a paralegal at a large Brisbane solicitors’ firm and as an assistant to a practising barrister.

Expert B opined that the Appellant suffers no “major mental illness or psychological personality disorder” and “represents a negligible risk of any future sexual offending”.

The Court found that these facts were not challenged during cross-examination of the Appellant.

Thus, the Court found that the circumstances relating to the Appellant’s offences do not demonstrate such an “ongoing flaw in the Appellant’s character” that the Appellant could not be considered a fit and proper person to be admitted.

From the court opinion

The appellant was born on 5 September 1982. He is therefore currently 34 years old. When he was 20 years old the appellant lived in Sydney. He began to work as a male escort. He embarked upon this occupation, as we understand his evidence, because he was sexually curious and was eager to widen his sexual experience. His clients were always adult males. The appellant moved to Queensland in 2005. He was then 23 years old. He continued to work as an escort. He advertised for clients in newspapers.

On 19 March 2007, the appellant received a telephone call from a person who was responding to one of his advertisements. The appellant says, and his evidence is not challenged in this respect, that the caller’s voice sounded like that of an adult and there was no reason to think that he was not. An appointment was made and the appellant met his client on 19 March 2007 and they engaged in various sexual acts together. In fact the client was a 15 year old boy. He called the appellant again and a further appointment was made. They met again on 21 March 2007 and, once more, they engaged in various sexual acts together. The boy continued to contact the appellant by text messages seeking further meetings. The appellant ignored these overtures and they had no further similar encounters.

The appellant recalls that during his first or the second meeting with the boy the latter referred to a recent birthday he had celebrated on which, he said, he had turned 16 years of age. He was a short person and he told the appellant that he had suffered from an illness as a young child which had stunted his growth.

The appellant has said, and this too is not challenged, that he believed that the age of consent for homosexual acts between consenting adults was 16. That is to say, he believed that he was not committing any offence by engaging in sexual acts with this particular person if he was indeed 16 years old as the appellant believed him to be.
In fact, the age of consent in Queensland was 18 years old. The legislation was changed in 2016 so that the age of consent for such acts is now 16.

On the day of the second encounter, or perhaps on the day following that encounter, the appellant received a telephone call from a person who, he later learned, was the boy’s stepfather. The caller asked his name and age which the appellant revealed candidly. The caller then verbally abused and scolded the appellant for having engaged in sexual acts with his 15 year old stepson. The appellant later learned that the boy’s stepfather had made enquiries about his son’s activities on the days in question and, having inspected the boy’s mobile phone, had found the numbers that he had called and, in that way, had tracked down the appellant.

A few days later police officers came to the appellant’s house and questioned him. The appellant was cooperative and candid and revealed the truth about his meetings with the boy. As a result of these matters the appellant was charged with the offences of which he was convicted. On 5 November 2008 he appeared before a Magistrate, pleaded guilty and was convicted.

(Mike Frisch)