IT’S the question no one wants to answer: Will a former Bathurst lawyer be charged with perjury after lying under oath and falsifying evidence in a court matter four years ago?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Mark Gerard Ireland was struck off as a practising solicitor in May this year after fabricating evidence in a case against a former colleague.
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal ordered that his name be removed from the local roll of lawyers after he was found guilty of professional misconduct for fabricating a letter (tendered as evidence in court) in a dispute with his former colleague, Daryl Pike.
The letter, which claimed to detail conditions of Mr Pike’s employment with the law firm Mark Ireland Lawyers, was dated February 20, 2006, and while Ireland originally claimed under cross-examination that the letter was genuine, he eventually admitted it was a fake.
Magistrate Geoffrey Bradd found in Mr Pike’s favour in that case, awarding him $13,303.88, plus interest.
Mr Pike then referred the matter to the Legal Services Commissioner who launched a separate investigation into whether Ireland should be allowed to continue practising.
Ireland was struck off in May but so far has not been charged with perjury.
And an investigation by the Western Advocate has found that any suggestion Ireland should be charged has been met with a series of buck-passing replies from officials.
A spokesman for the Legal Services Commissioner said on Monday that regulators had a duty to report a lawyer to the police if they suspected on reasonable grounds, after investigation or otherwise, that the lawyer had committed a serious (indictable) offence, if the suspected offence has not already been reported.
However, when asked about this specific case, the spokesman said he was “not at liberty to comment whether the Law Society, as investigating authority, has reported Mr Ireland to the police”.
NSW Police, despite numerous requests, would not comment on the matter when questioned by the Western Advocate.
The Law Society also refused to comment on the case when approached by the Western Advocate.