The conduct occurred while Ms Grey was acting for the parents of a child in the high-profile case in which hospital authorities sought a guardianship order to permit a blood transfusion. The name of the child and any identifying particulars and the child became known as “Baby W”.  Shortly after the hearing, Ms Grey agreed to do two separate interviews, during the course of which she used shortened versions of the first names of the mother and child. The Tribunal held that this created an appreciable risk of identification of the child given the names could lead some, with knowledge of the case, to identify them. 

In determining liability, the Tribunal noted that a deliberate breach of a suppression order would be misconduct. However, it considered Ms Grey did not deliberately set out to flout the suppression order, rather she had made a mistake, and in doing so she was neither wilful nor reckless of her fundamental obligations as a lawyer.  It noted that Ms Grey had become “caught up” in the intense nature of the hearing and that the names of the parents and the child were already in the public domain to some extent. The Tribunal made a finding of unsatisfactory conduct, noting that Ms Grey needed to take greater care than she did and that her conduct fell short of the standards of diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a lawyer.  The Tribunal did not consider Ms Grey should be held responsible for the breaches of the suppression order by one of the interviewers who repeatedly used the child and parents’ first names, but urged any lawyer who found themselves in that situation end the interview.  

In determining penalty, the Tribunal considered Ms Grey intended to comply with the order and that her errors were made at a time when she was exhausted after the stress of a high-profile case as mitigating features. It was also relevant that Ms Grey accepted responsibility and that her clients supported her in this matter and did not wish to see her disciplined. The Tribunal also had regard to Ms Grey’s long career and her dedication to doing pro bono and low-cost work. The Tribunal considered the combination of the liability decision, and the overall financial penalties imposed provided sufficient personal deterrence for Ms Grey (particularly given much of her work is pro bono or low cost) such that she would be more cautious in future. Ms Grey was fined $1,500 and ordered to contribute to the costs of the Committee and Tribunal.