A family rented the house next door to Mr Wintour. Following a confrontation over a parking issue, both households were called to a meeting facilitated by a property manager. The neighbour was unable to attend, so his wife went in his stead. At the meeting, Mr Wintour claimed the neighbour was a violent and dangerous man with a long list of convictions. Mr Wintour disclosed the neighbour’s criminal history to the property manager and neighbour’s wife. 

Mr Wintour denied personally obtaining the information and claimed the information was shared with him by others. At the hearing, the Tribunal heard the neighbour’s information was accessed the day before the meeting by a probation officer in a list court. At that time, it was common practice for lawyers to informally request criminal histories from the in-court probation officer. The Tribunal determined Mr Wintour took advantage of this (either personally or through an agent) and unlawfully obtained the neighbour’s information and then disclosed that information in an effort to have his neighbour evicted. The Tribunal characterised the conduct as personal (as opposed to professional) in nature and considered Mr Wintour’s actions justified the finding that he was not a fit and proper person to practise as a lawyer. It therefore considered that Mr Wintour had engaged in misconduct. 

Turning to penalty, the Tribunal noted that, to his credit, Mr Wintour had a lengthy and largely unblemished career, technical legal ability and had mentored other practitioners. However, the Tribunal criticised Mr Wintour’s lack of candour throughout the disciplinary process, noting he had provided false accounts of how he came by the information for almost seven years. The Tribunal considered this conduct reflected poorly on Mr Wintour’s character and his level of insight and contrition. The Tribunal noted Mr Wintour’s conduct was “unlawful, vindictive” and “disproportionate” and was serious misconduct. However, the Tribunal considered Mr Wintour’s departure from professional standards appeared limited to this personal matter and considered he was unlikely to repeat this particular behaviour when acting for clients. The Tribunal considered suspension a proportionate sanction to provide for reflection and proper contrition and rehabilitation. Mr Wintour was suspended for period of nine months commencing 1 July 2025 and censured by the Tribunal. Mr Wintour was also ordered to pay $5,000 in emotional harm compensation to the neighbour and costs.