He was originally admitted as he said that his zero mark was due to his poor attendance. The Board later found out it was due to misconduct and the Supreme Court found he made a deliberate misrepresentation in his admission to the Board.

“It could not be doubted that the board of examiners would not have been granted OG a certificate if it had been aware of the misrepresentation. He should not be permitted to benefit from the fact that he managed to mislead them.”

1. Repeal of pornography laws; 

2. Maintenance of the residential amenity in the Rocks area of Sydney 

3. Whitlam’s dismissal; 

4. The Export of uranium; 

5. The treatment of prisoners (especially female prisoners in jail); -Police corruption; and 

6. Fairly restrictive censorship laws 

• Bacon had ten convictions, but none related to dishonesty

• The board was unsatisfied she was of “good fame and character” nor a “fit and proper” person.

• Also, in relation to a bail bond paid by Bacon to bail SS, she claimed the money was lent to her by a friend, VA and she was unaware of its true origin. These were found to be untrue.

Richardson's plagiarism was the sharing of a assignment with another student who then copied Richardson's work.

trusted. By creating false evidence to support her claims, she was deliberately misleading the court

and not of a fit and proper character. She was also once found to be in contempt of court.

Her actions shows that she would be willing to stretch the rules if they stand in the way of her cause.

Her past actions cast a shadow on her claims that her attitudes and intentions have changed

"the participation by the plaintiff in the bail matter and her untruthful evidence given in court in relation to it render her unfit to be a barrister."

"The plaintiff has not been shown to be and in fact is not a person fit and proper to be admitted to practise as a barrister."

• Each of the supporting deponents who wrote evidence of character swore that to the best of their knowledge, the applicant had never, in Australia or elsewhere, been prosecuted for and convicted of any offence or had an offence proven against him.

• The applicant had told some untruths to police in the course of the investigation which led to his being charged with murder. Those untruths related to the knife which was the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the applicant had contemplated giving untrue instructions to his counsel in order to protect his wife from giving evidence at his trial. They are matters relevant to his application for admission to this Court

• Experience shows that acquittal might be on non-meritorious grounds. [31] applicant has a duty of frankness.

1. exhibiting an obscene publication (committed on the basis or retribution) (1971 conviction)

2. 1 of the 3 editors, who wrote the university student publication

3. use of indecent language (1971 conviction)

4. 5 offences committed under the Summary Offences Act (1973, 1974, 1975, 1977, and 1978)

5. Wilfully marking building with paint with a political slogan (1975)

6. using unseemly words (1977)

7. disobeying a reasonable direction from a police officer (26/9/1980)

she lied about origin of bail money ($10,000)

"The findings in respect of the bail bond, of course, make it quite impossible to accept the plaintiff's claim in evidence that she has changed her past attitudes. This affair shows she has not. Further, her lack of credit deprives her claim of force."

Mitigating factors: Scott did not believe he was doing anything wrong or committing academic misconduct when he gave his draft assignment and notes to the other student.

Scott had also lodged an appeal on the basis of a denial of natural justice by the Committee.

• The case sets a precedent for the implications of misconduct which I find very fair in the sense it highlights the serious nature of academic misconduct and the failure to disclose marks because it highlights values of dishonesty and poor academic practice.