Suria Shaik Aziz

Mr Suria Shaik Aziz applied in HC/AAS 530/2022 to be admitted as an Advocate and Solicitor. In 2016, in his final semester at the University of Tasmania, he submitted a research outline for an International Trade Law module whose table had been lifted from a website. The lecturer warned him of massive copying and the seriousness of breaching academic integrity rules. Weeks later he submitted the research paper itself, worth 60% of the grade, with a Turnitin similarity index of 42%. Whole paragraphs were taken from websites, some with minor rewording, without proper acknowledgment. He told the Head of School he had been rushing and had uploaded an incomplete paper. She found academic misconduct, and he was formally reprimanded, resubmitted the paper and passed a supplementary assessment. His record was otherwise clean.

He did not mention the incident in his affidavit for his 2022 part call application, which was granted without objection. His admission affidavit disclosed the reprimand but not the earlier warning on the outline. The Attorney-General's Chambers made inquiries with the university and objected, and the hearing was adjourned. It later withdrew its objection, and the other stakeholders did not object. At the hearing on 11 April 2023 he accepted that he had known of the high similarity index when he submitted.

1. Whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to be admitted, given the nature of his misconduct and his insight into it.
2. Whether his conduct during the university's investigation and his disclosures in the admission process were satisfactory.
3. Whether applicants for part call must disclose past misconduct in their affidavits.

The Chief Justice explained that where an applicant's competence is not in question, the inquiry is into character, judged by the misconduct, conduct during investigation, disclosures, remorse and rehabilitation. A clean record afterwards is relevant but not decisive. Deferment is rehabilitative, not punitive, so its mere passage does not entitle an applicant to admission.

The explanation of time pressure was rejected. Submitting a paper he expected to fail made no sense, noting citations for copied material would not have taken long, and the real wrong was presenting copied passages as his own analysis. Having been warned weeks earlier, he must have known he was passing off others' work as his own. The court gave him the benefit of the doubt on intent to deceive, but rejected the view of Law Society counsel that this was a lapse of diligence. It found instead a serious lack of ethical insight, which persisted: his affidavit framed the lesson as following rules more carefully.

His response during the university investigation repeated the incomplete paper excuse, unlike the prompt admission in Re Tay Jie Qi. His disclosure was incomplete because he left out the outline warning, and his claim not to recall it was not accepted. The court also held that part call applicants must meet the same character scrutiny and should disclose past misconduct at the first opportunity. As this was only now being clarified, his earlier omission was disregarded.

Sundaresh Menon CJ found the applicant not suitable for admission at that time and granted him leave to withdraw the application. This was on his undertaking not to apply to the bar in Singapore or elsewhere for four months and to meet any reasonable requirements of the stakeholders or the court. He must also show, on any fresh application, his efforts to understand the ethical implications of his actions.