The QCA said to acknowledge that misconduct, establishes a lack of – “Her unwillingness, subsequently, genuine insight into its gravity and significance: for present purposes, where the Court is concerned with fitness to practise, that aspect is at least as significant as the academic dishonesty itself. It could not presently be concluded the applicant is fit for admission as a legal If and when the application practitioner… does again come before the Court, the Court will need to be persuaded on appropriately cogent material that a finding of fitness is warranted. The mere lapse of time would not, without more, in a case of this overall concern, warrant the Court's concluding that fitness has been demonstrated. It is especially the applicant's subsequent attitude to the established misconduct which warrants a circumspect approach.” @ [21]. it is inappropriate to accept to practice a person who reacts to stress by acting dishonestly to ensure his personal advancement to be admitted must exhibit a degree of integrity which engenders in Court and in clients unquestioning confidence in the completely honest discharge of their professional commitments Cheating so close to the time of admission in the course which qualifies you for practice is unacceptable and makes you unfit for admission. Comments: The findings against the respondent involve serious plagiarism, committed more than once. At relevant times, she was a person of mature years 25 and 27 years old. Her unwillingness, subsequently, to acknowledge — that misconduct, establishes a lack of genuine insight into its gravity and significance: for present purposes, where the Court is concerned with fitness to practise, that aspect is at least as significant as the academic dishonesty itself. It could not presently be concluded the applicant is fit for admission as a legal practitioner at [21] per de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Williams JA. The mere lapse of time would not, without more, in a case of this overall concern, warrant the Court’s concluding that fitness has been demonstrated. It is especially the to the applicant’s subsequent attitude established misconduct which warrants a circumspect approach at [24] per de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Williams JA.
The QCA said – “Her unwillingness, subsequently, to acknowledge that misconduct, establishes a lack of genuine insight into its gravity and significance: for present purposes, where the Court is concerned with fitness to practise, that aspect is at least as significant as the academic dishonesty itself. It could not presently be concluded the applicant is fit for admission as a legal practitioner… If and when the application does again come before the Court, the Court will need to be persuaded on appropriately cogent material that a finding of fitness is warranted. The mere lapse of time would not, without more, in a case of this overall concern, warrant the Court's concluding that fitness has been demonstrated. It is especially the applicant's subsequent attitude to the established misconduct which warrants a circumspect approach.” @ [21]. it is inappropriate to accept to practice a person who reacts to stress by acting dishonestly to ensure his personal advancement to be admitted must exhibit a degree of integrity which engenders in Court and in clients unquestioning confidence in the completely honest discharge of their professional commitments Cheating so close to the time of admission in the course which qualifies you for practice is unacceptable and makes you unfit for admission. Comments: The findings against the respondent involve serious plagiarism, committed more than once. At relevant times, she was a person of mature years — 25 and 27 years old. Her unwillingness, subsequently, to acknowledge that misconduct, establishes a lack of genuine insight into its gravity and significance: for present purposes, where the Court is concerned with fitness to practise, that aspect is at least as significant as the academic dishonesty itself. It could not presently be concluded the applicant is fit for admission as a legal practitioner at [21] per de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Williams JA. The mere lapse of time would not, without more, in a case of this overall concern, warrant the Court’s concluding that fitness has been demonstrated. It is especially the applicant’s subsequent attitude to the established misconduct which warrants a circumspect approach at [24] per de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Williams JA.