23 May 2014
The application was refused because the applicant's repeated academic misconduct, including during professional legal training, combined with inadequate evidence of rehabilitation, lack of full disclosure and unsupported references, meant he failed to establish that he is of good character and a fit and proper person for admission under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.
26 Oct 2011
On the facts the applicant satisfied the onus of proving he is a fit and proper person; the student plagiarism incident was minor, produced only a written warning and a reduced passing mark, and did not disqualify him from admission; the absence of a Law Society certificate and non‑disclosure to referees did not prevent admission when the Law Society did not oppose the application.
8 Dec 2010
The DAC's decisions were quashed and remitted because the DAC failed to take into account a relevant matter — the website references on the pages preceding the contested images in the final exegesis — and failed to provide adequate reasons and notice before effectively finding intentional plagiarism; those defects amounted to reviewable error requiring reconsideration by the DAC.