Re Suria Shaik Aziz
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | Admission of Advocates and Solicitors No 530 of 2022 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
[2023] SGHC 129
Sundaresh Menon CJ
Admission of Advocates and Solicitors No 530 of 2022
General Division of the High Court
Legal Profession — Admission — Applicant who plagiarised in one of his research papers in university applying to be admitted as advocate and solicitor in Singapore — Whether applicant could be considered fit and proper person to be admitted
Held, granting leave to the Applicant to withdraw his admission application subject to certain undertakings:
(1) The purpose of deferment in admission applications is rehabilitative, not punitive. The need for deferment, its appropriate duration, and where it has expired, its efficacy, had to all be carefully assessed in every case. The question for the court and the Stakeholders to consider is not whether an applicant had been sufficiently punished for her misconduct, but rather, whether that applicant had sufficiently reformed her character issues and demonstrated her suitability to shoulder the weighty responsibilities that come with being an Advocate and Solicitor in Singapore: at [23].
(2) The Applicant had to have known that he was passing the work of others as his own when he submitted the Research Paper. This was because he: (a) knew he had copied a significant amount of materials from the Internet in his Research Paper; (b) knew he did not provide proper citations for these materials; and (c) understood the express warnings from Prof Hilkemeijer about the consequences of plagiarism for the Research Outline: at [29].
(3) The true essence of the Applicant's misconduct was, therefore, either: (a) a lack of integrity for intending to deceive the University that the plagiarised materials were in fact his own work; or (b) a failure to apprehend the ethical implications of his actions, these being implications that any reasonable lawyer, whether qualified or aspiring, ought to see. The court gave the Applicant the benefit of the doubt and found that it was the latter: at [30] and [31].
(4) The Applicant's repeated characterisation of his misconduct as the submission of an incomplete paper due to a lack of time suggested that he was seeking to downplay his culpability, or at the very least, that he had not gained any insight about the ethical implications of his misconduct, which was a serious impediment to his readiness to be called to the bar: at [28], [34] and [37].
(5) The Applicant had not been completely forthright in his disclosures. Although the Applicant disclosed his act of plagiarism for the Research Paper in his Admission Affidavit, he made no mention of the Research Outline incident and the warning he received from Prof Hilkemeijer. Such information concerning the lead-up to his act of plagiarism in his Research Paper would have been relevant for the Court and the Stakeholders to enable them to assess the overall severity of his misconduct: at [42] to [44].
(6) An applicant who sought to be part called in the future should disclose in the supporting affidavit any prior misconduct that might affect her suitability to practice. A failure to do so might be relevant to the court's determination regarding the transparency of his disclosures. This was because a part call application, if granted, essentially allowed the applicant to appear before a judge or registrar and to assist in the administration of justice. It was therefore paramount that the court and the Stakeholders, as gatekeepers of the legal profession, be availed of all relevant information of the applicant's character when determining whether to consent to the part call application: at [39] to [41].
(7) The Applicant continued to demonstrate a lack of appreciation or insight as to the ethical implications of his misconduct even until the time of his admission hearing. He would benefit from taking more time to sharpen his awareness of the ethical implications that inhere in the decisions and choices that he would have to make as an Advocate and Solicitor in Singapore. Leave was granted to the Applicant to withdraw his application, subject to his undertaking not to bring a fresh application for admission to the roll of advocates and solicitors in Singapore or to the Bar in any other jurisdiction for a period of four months from the date of the hearing on 11 April 2023: at [1] and [22].
Tay Jie Qi, Re[2023] SGHC 59 (refd)
Tay Quan Li Leon, Re[2022] SGHC 133 (refd)
Teo Jun Kiat, Evan, Re[2015] SGHC 274 (refd)
Wong Wai Loong Sean, Re[2022] SGHC 237 (refd)
The applicant, Mr Suria Shaik Aziz (the “Applicant”), graduated from the University of Tasmania (the “University”). In 2016, during his last semester at the University, he took the International Trade Law module (the “Module”) under Prof Anja Hilkemeijer (“Prof Hilkemeijer”), for which he had to submit a research paper that accounted for 60% of his grade for the Module (the “Research Paper”).
On 13 September 2016, the Applicant submitted a research outline (the “Research Outline”) to Prof Hilkemeijer. The Research Outline was a preparatory submission for the Research Paper and was not a graded assignment. The Research Outline was screened by “Turnitin”, an Internet-based plagiarism detection service used by the University, which revealed that the Applicant had copied certain material from the Internet without attributing its source. Prof Hilkemeijer informed the Applicant that there was “massive copying” in his Research Outline and warned him about the severe consequences of plagiarism (the “Research Outline incident”).
On 28 October 2016, the Applicant submitted the Research Paper. The Turnitin report for his Research Paper revealed a similarity index of 42% which suggested that a significant portion of his Research Paper had been lifted from the Internet. This prompted Prof Margaret Otlowski (“Prof Otlowski”), the Head of School of the University's Faculty of Law at the material time, to investigate the matter.
On 4 November 2016, Prof Otlowski determined that the Applicant's actions amounted to academic misconduct (the “Research Paper incident”). The Applicant received a letter of formal reprimand from the University. The University's records revealed no other finding of academic or general misconduct against the Applicant. The Applicant subsequently graduated from the University and he completed his Part A and Part B examinations for admission to the Bar in Singapore satisfactorily, without any complaints of dishonesty or misconduct.
On 13 June 2022, the Applicant applied to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor in Singapore. On 20 June 2022, he applied to be part called under s 32(3) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (“LPA”) (the “Part Call Application”). He did not disclose the plagiarism incident in his affidavit for his Part Call Application (the “Part Call Affidavit”). His Part Call Application was granted on 12 July 2022.
On 19 September 2022, the Applicant filed his affidavit for admission (the “Admission Affidavit”) in which he disclosed the Research Paper incident. The Attorney-General's Chambers (“AGC”) requested more information on the Research Paper incident. The Applicant thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 29 September 2022 (the “Supplementary Affidavit”) in which he explained that he had some health issues in 2016 and did not have sufficient time to complete his referencing in his Research Paper. He did not mention the Research Outline incident in both of his affidavits.
The Applicant's admission hearing was initially fixed on 12 October 2022. The AGC objected to his admission and upon the AGC's request, the Applicant agreed to adjourn his admission hearing for four months. The hearing for his admission application was rescheduled for hearing on 11 April 2023. By the time of the hearing, the AGC, the Law Society of Singapore (“Law Society”) and the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (“SILE”) (collectively, the “Stakeholders”) had no objections to his admission. The issue before the court was whether the Applicant could be considered a fit and proper person to be admitted.
Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) s 32(3) (consd); s 13(b)
Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011 Second Schedule
Uthayasurian s/o Sidambaram and Divanan s/o Narkunan (Phoenix Law Corporation) for the applicant in AAS 530/2022;
Lee Hui Min and Clement Lim Chau Jie (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the Attorney-General;
Andrew Chua (Drew & Napier LLC) andDarryl Chew (Chia Wong Partnership LLC) for the Law Society of Singapore;
Wong Li-Yen Dew (Dew Chambers) for the Singapore Institute of Legal Education.
5 May 2023
Sundaresh Menon CJ:
1 HC/AAS 530/2022 (“AAS 530”) was an application by Mr Suria Shaik Aziz (the “Applicant”) for admission as an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court. By the time the matter came before me, there were no objections to the application. However, I was not satisfied that the Applicant sufficiently appreciated the ethical implications of his misconduct some years earlier whilst still a law student, which had been disclosed in his affidavit in support of the admission application. I took the view that the Applicant would benefit from taking more time to sharpen his awareness of the ethical implications that inhere in the decisions and choices that he will have to make as an Advocate and Solicitor in Singapore. When I informed the parties of my view, the Applicant sought leave to withdraw his application, which I granted subject to his undertaking not to bring a fresh application for admission to the roll of Advocates and Solicitors in Singapore or to the Bar in any other jurisdiction for a period of four months from the date of the hearing. I gave brief reasons for my decision and now provide the detailed grounds of my decision.
2 The Applicant graduated from the University of Tasmania (the “University”). In 2016, during his last...
To continue reading
Request your trial