//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2004] QCA 88
Court of Appeal (Qld)
2004-03-15
de, Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Philippides J, Separate reasons for judgment of, each member of the Court
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: Queensland Judgments (Supreme Court Library Queensland) (www.queenslandjudgments.com.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Re: AJG [2004] QCA 88
PARTIES: IN THE MATTER OF THE RULES RELATING TO THE ADMISSION OF SOLICITORS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND and IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY AJG FOR ADMISSION AS A SOLICITOR OF THE SAID COURT (applicant)
FILE NO/S: SC No 2015 of 2004
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Application for Admission
ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: 15 March 2004
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 15 March 2004
JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Philippides J / Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Application adjourned, not to be relisted before the expiration of six months from todayDispense with the need for further advertisement
CATCHWORDS: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – ADMISSION – where applicant disclosed a finding against him of academic misconduct – where the Court has previously emphasised the unacceptability of this conduct on the part of an applicant to the legal profession – whether cheating in the academic course which leads to the qualification central to practice precludes the Court from being satisfied of the applicant’s fitness
COUNSEL: P W Hackett for the applicant / M Timmins for the Solicitors’ Board
SOLICITORS: Morgan Conley for the applicant
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant has disclosed a finding against him of academic misconduct.
While engaged in the Practical Legal Training Course at Griffith University, he copied the work of another student, M. The letter dated 2nd November 2003 from the Dean, Professor Hunter, shows that it was substantial copying and not just, as the applicant had asserted, of material available in the public forum. He was failed in the subject, resat and passed.
Over the last couple of years, the Court has, in strong terms, emphasised the unacceptability of this conduct on the part of an applicant for admission to the legal profession. At the last Admissions Sitting, the Court indicated a strengthening of its response to situations like this on the basis adequate warning had been given.
This is a case where the applicant must be taken to have turned his face, at least recklessly, against those possible consequences. Significantly, in his response dated 31st October 2003 to the Dean, when called upon to show cause, he said this:
"I most humbly request that the decision-makers in this matter exercise their discretion to please pardon the offence. While I accept responsibility for my actions, I know that in recent times the Courts are reluctant to allow admission of lawyers who have a recorded offence of academic misconduct so close to the date of admission. Such a result would shatter my dream of becoming a solicitor and the struggle to stay afloat and to finally find this job that I love would all have been in vain."
The Solicitors Board has not opposed his admission because the incident appeared to be a one-off aberration and, significantly, because "the applicant was clearly experiencing significant external stressors of a financial and domestic nature at the time of the incident".
He had lost his employment in September 2003 and was experiencing stress and financial hardship. But as the Dean pointed out, his rational course was to seek an extension of time for the submission of the course work.
It is inappropriate that we should, without pause, accept as fit to practise an applicant who responds to stress by acting dishonestly to ensure his personal advancement.
On the 10th of November 2003, the Court admitted M, who provided the work which was copied, even though a finding of academic dishonesty had been made against him because of that incident. I do not think that means we must now admit the applicant.
The applicant's offence is graver. He committed it at a time when he concededly appreciated its possible affect on his application for admission and he applies now at a time when the Court has been signalling a likely stronger approach.
Legal practitioners must exhibit a degree of integrity which engenders in the Court and in clients unquestioning confidence in the completely honest discharge of their professional commitments. Cheating in the academic course which leads to the qualification central to practice and at a time so close to the application for admission must preclude our presently being satisfied of this applicant's fitness.
I would adjourn the application not to be relisted before the expiration of six months from today. I would dispense with the need for further advertisement.
JERRARD JA: I agree.
PHILIPPIDES J: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Those are the orders.