RE “A”

HCMP 2079/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2079 OF 2016

___________________

__________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. By a Notice of Motion dated 15 August 2016 (Notice of Motion), the Applicant applies under s.27 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Cap 159 (Ordinance) for an order that he be admitted and enrolled as a barrister of the High Court of the HKSAR.

2. There is an unusual feature of this application in that the Applicant has a criminal conviction, the details of which will be set out below.  The Secretary for Justice (SJ) has a number of concerns arising from the Applicant’s criminal conviction, and is unable to consent to this application.  Whereas the Hong Kong Bar Association (HKBA) has no objection to the admission of the Applicant as one of its members.  This court has been informed that the parties are not aware of any previous application of this nature where the SJ and the HKBA are in disagreement. 

Issue

3. The issue in this application is whether the Applicant is considered by this court as a “fit and proper person” to be admitted as a barrister – a requirement under s.27(1) of the Ordinance. 

4. Admission proceedings are not adversarial in nature.  They are concerned with the protection of public interest and do not involve a resolution of conflicting private rights of disputing parties: see Re Mably [2014] 1 HKLRD 627 at §14, per Lam VP, citing with approval Wentworth v NSW Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 239, 250-251.

5. Given that public interest is at stake, both the SJ and the HKBA have a responsibility to assist the court in assessing whether an applicant for admission as a barrister meets the fit and proper person criterion: see Re Youh Alan Chuen Po [2013] 2 HKLRD 485 at §11 & §59, per Lam JA (as he then was).

6. Hence, both the SJ and the HKBA had appeared at the hearing to assist the court.  They were represented by, respectively, Mr Pao and Mr Pang SC.  The Applicant was represented by Mr Grossman SC and Ms Lau.

Material facts

7. The material facts are uncontroversial and as follows.  On 24 September 2010, the Applicant was convicted in the Fanling Magistracy for indecent assault.  He was 22 years old at the time, and attending the final year of a bachelor’s degree course on radiotherapy.

8. The charge was that the Applicant indecently assaulted a female in a pedestrian subway near an MTRC station on 2 February 2010.  The victim was 14 years old, dressed in student uniform and on her way to school at the time of the offence. 

9. The Applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge and elected to give evidence at his trial, which took place on 27 August, 1, 7 and 24 September 2010.  His evidence was not accepted by the Magistrate who described his testimony as “making up excuses” and rejected his evidence as untruthful.  The Magistrate found that the Applicant “intentionally and purposely” touched the breast of the victim with his left elbow and clutched the buttocks of the victim.

10. On 8 October 2010, the Applicant was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment.  He was released on the day of sentencing since he had been remanded in custody for the same period of time pending the production of sentencing reports.

11. The probation officer’s reports indicated that the Applicant still maintained his innocence even after conviction.  Although he was considered to be a “cooperative, decent and upright young man”, he still displayed a “persistent denial attitude”.  A community service order was therefore not recommended as a penalty.  The psychological report of the Applicant also noted his denial of the offence.  It was concluded that in view of his criminal history (he had a clear criminal record) and other information collected in the assessment, the risk of re-offending by the Applicant was estimated to be low.

12. In July 2010 (before trial), the Applicant started to work as a radiation therapist at a hospital until August 2011 where he turned to study law. 

13. According to a letter from the Applicant to the Secretary of Radiographers Board (Board) dated 22 October 2010, he only “reported this incident” to his supervisor at the hospital on 24 September 2010.  That was the day when the Applicant was convicted and he was remanded in custody to 8 October 2010 pending the sentencing reports.  Therefore, I assume that the report to his supervisor was done by someone on his behalf. The Applicant’s letter went on to say that special arrangement had been made for him to work in the planning section to avoid contact between him and patients, pending his appeal against conviction.  I mention this in particular because this contemporaneous record is at odds with the information provided to the court by the Applicant via his senior counsel that he only carried out administrative duties whilst he was a radiation therapist. 

14. It should also be noted from the contents of that letter that the Applicant did not report his involvement with a criminal offence to the Board earlier.  See also para 33 below. 

15. After graduating from the PCLL in 2014, the Applicant worked as a legal clerk at a firm of solicitors before deciding to apply for the commencement of pupillage in 2015.

16. The Applicant had disclosed his conviction to his 3 pupil masters, and each of his pupil masters had signed a pupillage certificate which certified that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted as a barrister.

17. When the Applicant applied for a Certificate of Eligibility for Pupillage in August 2015, he disclosed the conviction and certain relevant documents to the Bar Council.  On 13 April 2016, the Applicant applied for a Certificate of Qualification for Admission.  On 4 May 2016, the Applicant was issued the said Certificate by the Bar Council which certified that he is a fit and proper person to be called to the Hong Kong Bar.

18. On 15 August 2016, the Applicant filed the Notice of Motion.  The application was supported by an Affirmation from him.

19. After the Notice of Motion was filed, the SJ made inquiries and requested for documents and information in relation to the application.  In particular, on 26 August 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) requested the Applicant to provide all information and documents relating to the indecent assault conviction to enable the SJ to form a view on his admission.

20. On 30 August 2016, the Applicant’s solicitors provided certain documents relating to the conviction, including the charge sheet, brief facts, verdict, certificate of trial and sentencing reports.

21. On 2 September 2016, the DOJ replied and suggested that the Applicant should file and serve a supplemental affirmation exhibiting the documents provided on 30 August 2016 (which was subsequently done).  The DOJ also inquired whether these documents were provided to the Bar Council and his pupil masters, and whether there was other information which was relevant to the fit and proper person criterion.

22. On 6 September 2016, the Applicant confirmed that the documents had been provided to the Bar Council when he applied for a Certificate of Eligibility for Pupillage, and to his pupil masters when he applied for pupillage.

23. On 19 September 2016, the HKBA informed the Applicant that it had no objection to the application for admission.

24. On 20 September 2016, the DOJ referred to the following facts which had not been disclosed by the Applicant and requested an explanation for the non-disclosure, namely: (i) the Applicant appealed against his conviction, which was dismissed on 8 March 2011; and (ii) the Applicant was reprimanded by the Board after disciplinary proceedings because of the conviction.

25. On 20 and 21 September 2016, the Applicant offered certain explanations for the non-disclosure of the appeal and the disciplinary action.  In short, the Applicant took the view that the disclosure of the conviction was sufficient.

26. On 21 September 2016, the Applicant provided documents in relation to the criminal appeal and the disciplinary action by the Board to the HKBA.

27. On 23 September 2016, the Applicant informed the HKBA that the new documents were provided to his pupil masters and their feedback was positive.  Each of the pupil masters had subsequently reiterated his view on the Applicant’s fitness and propriety to be called to the Hong Kong Bar. 

28. On 23 September 2016, the HKBA informed the Applicant that it needed time to re-consider the application in view of the various instances of non-disclosure.

29. On 28 September 2016, the Applicant provided further documents in relation to the criminal appeal and the disciplinary action to the DOJ and the HKBA.

30. On 1 November 2016, the HKBA informed the Applicant that it maintained its no objection stance to his application.

Matters not originally disclosed

31. The matters in relation to the appeal which were originally not disclosed may be summarized as follows.  On 8 March 2011, Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Chan (as he then was) dismissed the appeal against conviction filed by the Applicant.

32. On 4 April 2011, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (CFA), and submissions were filed with the CFA on his behalf.  The application was dismissed by the Appeal Committee of the CFA on 20 December 2011 on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable ground of appeal.

33. The matters originally not disclosed in relation to the disciplinary proceedings before the Board may be summarized as follows. By a letter dated 22 October 2010 (this is the same letter referred to in para 13 above), the Applicant informed the Board of his conviction.  He apologised for not informing the Board earlier and claimed that he was “not aware of what [he] should do regarding this incident at that time”.  He also informed the Board that he “did not commit any crime” and that he was appealing to the High Court.

34. On 24 October 2012, the Applicant filed submissions to the Board to explain his position in response to the disciplinary action against him (Explanation).  Despite the dismissal of his appeal and the rejection of his leave application by the CFA, he “insisted that [he has] committed no criminal offence of any kind and the allegation against (sic) by the prosecution is utterly untrue”.  The Applicant also made various submissions on the quality of the evidence against him and why his conviction was “incorrect”.

35. In the Explanation, the Applicant also endeavoured to explain why he did not declare the matter when he registered as a therapeutic radiographer.  His explanation was that “the conviction was after the registration and the appeals went on for a substantial period of time”.  It should be noted that the offence took place before the registration.

36. After a Notice of Inquiry dated 13 December 2012 was issued to the Applicant, on 13 March 2013 the Board ordered that the Applicant should be reprimanded on the basis that the Board was satisfied that the Applicant was a registered therapeutic radiographer (Part II) who was convicted on 24 September 2010 of indecent assault and that such order shall be published in the Gazette.  It was noted by the Board that the persistent denial of any offence indicated that the Applicant had no remorse. 

Law

37. There are a number of authorities from Hong Kong and other common law jurisdictions from which relevant principles of law can be found.  These principles will be of guidance in the determination of this case, which is a challenging exercise.  However, ultimately the decision is one of judgment of the court made in light of these principles.

Public interest

38. First and foremost, the admission of a member to the Bar involves a matter of public interest.  Public interest is generally accepted as paramount, and there can be no exception in this case.  I believe that there are 2 aspects under this head: (a) public confidence in the Bar; and (b) the trust and confidence which a member of the Bar commands from the court and fellow members of the legal professions (both the HKBA and the Law Society). 

39. I can put the matter no better than citing the authority of Lam JA in Re Youh Alan Chuen Po, supra, §§9-10 :

“The “fit and proper person” criterion is an important one.  It is a criterion which an applicant has to satisfy beyond meeting the academic and legal training requirements.  There is a considerable degree of public trust and confidence placed upon a barrister.  A person admitted as a barrister has the privilege of practising as a member of one of the most respected professions in our society.  Members of the public, the Judiciary and other members of the legal profession expect members of the Bar to have integrity, honour, high professional standard, reasonably sound judgment and competence in their practice.  In Hong Kong, the Bar can say with justifiable pride that by and large such expectations are met.

  The conduct of a barrister in his or her professional practice often has immense ramifications for the life of a client beyond the immediate outcome of a case.  Such ramifications can be financial, emotional, political or social.  What happens in litigation could affect the physical, emotional or psychological well-being of a client or those close to him or her.  It is therefore necessary for the law to place importance on the “fit and proper person” criterion.  Given that we have an adversarial system, unless the court and members of the public can have confidence that those practising at the Bar are fit and proper persons, the administration of justice under our system will be severely hampered and the rule of law, a core value in our society, will be tarnished …”

40. In the same vein, in Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW (1957) 97 CLR 279, Kitto J (one of the 5 judges of the High Court of Australia) stated at 298 that :

“Yet it cannot be that every proof which he may give of human frailty so disqualifies him. The ends which he has to serve are lofty indeed, but it is with men and not with paragons that he is required to pursue them. It is not difficult to see in some forms of conduct, or in convictions of some kinds of offences, instant demonstration of unfitness for the Bar. Conduct may show a defect of character incompatible with membership of a self-respecting profession; or, short of that, it may show unfitness to be joined with the Bench and the Bar in the daily co-operation which the satisfactory working of the courts demands. A conviction may of its own force carry such a stigma that judges and members of the profession may be expected to find it too much for their self-respect to share with the person convicted the kind and degree of association which membership of the Bar entails.”

Principles

41. Mr Pang had helpfully referred to the case of Re M [2005] 2 NZLR 544.  The following principles can be extracted from the judgment of the High Court of New Zealand (Panckhurst and Chisholm JJ) :

(1)  “… the test of suitability[1] is necessarily an objective one, where sympathy for the person which a subjective approach might engender, has no place” (p.547, [18]);

(2)  The personal and professional sides of a person’s conduct cannot be disassociated (p.547, [20]);

(3)  In cases involving a person with previous conviction(s), “the central issue is whether [that person], despite her past, has demonstrated that she is now a fit and proper person to be admitted.  In other words, is there sufficient evidence of her change of character, or reformation, to enable the Court to view favourably her application” (p.547, [21]);

(4)  In assessing whether the person has reformed:

(a)  the focus is necessarily forward looking.  The function of the Court is not to punish the applicant for past conduct (p.547, [21]);

(b)  the onus upon a person who has erred in a professional sense following admission to the legal profession is a heavier one than that of a candidate for admission (p.548, [22]);

(c)  due recognition must be given to the circumstances of youth where errors of conduct occurred when an applicant was immature (p.548, [22]);

(d)  it is important to look at the facts of the case in the round and not just pay regard to the fact of a previous conviction (p.548, [23]).

42. Three points should be made in respect of the applicable law set out above.  Firstly, it is not in dispute.  Secondly, some of the authorities cited to the court were concerned with disciplinary proceedings as opposed to admission of a barrister.  However, such distinction does not affect the relevance of the principles (see Re M, supra, p.545, [15]).

43. Thirdly, I do not believe that it is fruitful to consider the outcome of the cases because: (a) they were facts sensitive; and (b) the judgment of the court has to reflect the ethos and expectations of the community at large.  Those elements vary between different communities. 

Analysis

Public interest

44. I begin the analysis in this case with what is stated in the Statements of Principles and Guidelines for the Inns’ Conduct Committee, 13 January 2015, §5, which provides :

“In general, any criminal conduct or other reprehensible behaviour will be powerful evidence of the lack of one or more of [the essential qualities of a fit and proper person to practise at the English Bar]”.

The same must be applicable to the Hong Kong Bar.

45. Next, I have to consider the seriousness of the conviction in question, which is one of the reasons why the SJ is unable to agree to this application.  Whilst it is true that the conviction is not of the most serious nature insofar as indecent assault is concerned, it cannot be regarded as anything but a conviction of a serious offence by a man of full age.  The offence involved conduct which was predatory and aimed at a vulnerable person.  The immediate custody sentence imposed on a 22 year old man with a clear criminal record reflected the seriousness of the offence. 

46. I do not believe the community of Hong Kong expects that a member of the Bar can be a person with a criminal conviction sufficiently serious to merit a custody sentence.  Indeed, none of the parties were able to identify a case where a person with such a conviction had been admitted to the Bar.

47. Although it may be said that generalisation can be unfair, it appears to me when it comes to reconciling between the criterion of a “fit and proper person” and an applicant with a criminal conviction, there may be a line drawn where the conviction involves a crime so serious, and constitutes such a poor reflection of the applicant’s character, that plainly it would not be right for him to be regarded as a fit and proper person (see also the dicta of Kitto J at para 40 above).  As an example, I believe that most people in Hong Kong, and the majority of the members of the legal professions and Judiciary, would not accept that a person convicted of raping a young girl can ever be admitted to the Bar. 

48. However, as observed by Kitto J in Ziems, supra, p.297: “… it will be generally agreed that there are many kinds of conduct deserving of disapproval, and many kinds of convictions of breaches of the law, which do not spell unfitness for the Bar; and to draw the dividing line is by no means always an easy task.”

49. In Re Edward Christopher Harris, HCMP 1676/1991, unrep, 2 October 1991, Jones J held that: “… A sentence of imprisonment in the normal course of events must necessarily amount to misconduct that renders a member of the Bar unfit to practise.” 

50. In my view, whilst it may not be regarded as a bright line test, it must be quite exceptional for a person who had served a sentence of imprisonment for his crime to be admitted to the Bar. 

51. A few words must be added to the expectations of the community of Hong Kong on the standard and integrity of the Bar and its members.  In recent years, there had been, not infrequently, occasions of controversy involving matters of the law which generated much public attention.  Many of the public would wait to hear from the Bar, which is regarded as the defender of the rule of law, as well as the impartial voice on legal issues.  The standing of the Bar in the eyes of Hong Kong cannot be understated. 

52. Further, a member of the Bar has no obligation to disclose his previous conviction to either his instructing solicitors or the lay client.  Both the solicitors and the client would take upon blind faith, as they are entitled to, that their barrister is a man of impeccable character. There is little doubt in my mind that most solicitors and lay clients would be aggrieved if they find out that in fact the barrister instructed has a serious criminal conviction.

53. Solicitors are important partners to the Bar. There is no reason to doubt that at least a significant number of them would not choose to instruct a counsel with a serious conviction, especially when there are ample choices for junior counsel.  If things went wrong, they are liable to be blamed by the lay clients for not informing them and/or finding out that the counsel they recommended has a serious conviction.

54. Turning to the conviction of the Applicant, it may be seen to be harsh that a person who had committed a serious crime in his early adulthood would forever be prevented from joining the Bar (that is very much the theme of Mr Grossman’s eloquent submissions).  On the other hand, would it be appropriate for this person to be conducting prosecution work?  If he is to represent a vulnerable person[2], would the parents of his lay client not have a legitimate complaint that they did not expect, and were not informed, that he has a criminal conviction of indecent assault?  Would such circumstances not undermine the public confidence in the Bar? 

55. These are hard questions, but questions which the court must consider objectively.  I am unable to answer any of them in favour of the Applicant. 

56. Whatever personal sympathy one may have for the Applicant, it is a fact that there are consequences which follow the commission of a serious offence.  It has also to be said that the Applicant could not have embarked upon his legal studies with the same expectation as those without a serious conviction. 

57. Another way of gauging the matter[3] is to consider whether a member of the Bar, with a similar conviction as that of the Applicant, would be disbarred after a disciplinary hearing.  Mr Grossman acknowledged that it would probably be the case, whereas Mr Pang said that there would be a real possibility that such a member would be disbarred. 

Whether the view of the HKBA should be accorded more weight

58. It became clear in the course of Mr Grossman’s submission that his main argument is that the view of the HKBA, being the jury and peers of the Applicant, should be accorded more weight than that of the SJ.  That is not a position adopted by the HKBA.  With respect, like the SJ, I am unable to accept the proposition. 

59. First, the decision and responsibility over the admission to the Bar rests ultimately with the court.  The court would examine the bases of the decisions of the HKBA and the SJ, and accord such weight to the same as is properly justified. 

60. Secondly, Mr Pao had informed the court that the decision of the SJ, who is a guardian of public interest, was not taken lightly.  Due regard was paid to the potential ramifications on public confidence.  The views of the Law Officers were sought, and 2 opinions were obtained on the matter from outside counsel, one of whom was a senior member of the Bar.  Quite rightly, Mr Grossman accepted what was said by Mr Pao without reservation. 

61. In my view, the divergence of opinion between the HKBA and the SJ is not altogether surprising in a case where one has the difficult choice between upholding the standard of the Bar and giving a chance to a relatively young man.

62. Thirdly, it must not be overlooked that the DOJ is one of the largest consumers of the service provided by the Bar as well as one of the biggest direct employers of barristers.  The fact the SJ, after careful consideration, feels unable to accept that the Applicant is fit to become a member of the Bar speaks volumes. 

63. Fourthly, with respect to the HKBA, I have reservation whether, in its decision making process, the issue of public interest had been adequately considered.  It appears from the evidence of the HKBA, as well as the submissions of Mr Pang, that in making its decision the HKBA had relied heavily upon the views of the Applicant’s 3 pupil masters that he is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the Bar.  I shall deal with such views below. 

Reformation

64. The second concern of the SJ is the total lack of remorse by the Applicant over the crime he committed. 

65. Whilst it may be said that the Applicant’s appeal to the High Court and the CFA were matters of exercising his constitutional right, the evidence before the court does not show that he has in any way accepted his responsibility.  This is highly material on the question whether the Applicant has reformed from his past. 

66. The issue of reformation must be considered in light of the rejection of his testimony by the Magistrate, as well as the Explanation which was submitted to the Board after the rejection of the Applicant’s appeal by the CFA (see para 34 above).  The latter tends to suggest that the Applicant does not accept the criminal justice system. 

67. In respect of the views of the pupil masters, I accept that: (a) they performed an important public duty in certifying the fitness of the Applicant for admission to the Bar and they had to give a responsible opinion in doing so (see Re Youh Alan Chuen Po, supra, §8); and (b) Mr Pang’s submission that with the benefit of prolonged direct contact with the Applicant, the pupil masters would be in a good position to judge whether he has reformed. 

68. However, looking at the material emanated from the pupil masters, one of them had provided a standardised letter of certification and a very short email confirming his view after the disclosure of additional material by the Applicant.  One of them provided 2 letters in addition to the certification and confirmation.  In those letters, the pupil master expressed the view that the Applicant has managed to rehabilitate himself.  The third pupil master had provided 2 letters of “feedback” as well as the certification. 

69. I am much troubled by one of the feedback letters.  In that letter, the writer stated that during the pupillage of the Applicant he had asked for and read the full transcript of the trial of his pupil.  He had “always been persuaded that [the Applicant was] wrongly convicted”, and he formed the view (after reading the skeleton arguments for the appeals) that “the appeal courts failed to grasp the appeal points”. Further, the writer felt very sorry that the Applicant “had fallen victim to our imperfect criminal justice system”. 

70. The court would not attribute to the Applicant the view expressed by another person.  On the other hand, it is highly unlikely for the Applicant not to have discussed his conviction with the writer, and it is inconceivable for him to have shown any acceptance of his conviction in the course of such discussion.  Mr Grossman did not endeavour to suggest otherwise. 

71. The writer was free to express his view and to criticise the court.  What is disturbing is that he might well have encouraged the Applicant to believe that he was wrongly convicted and not to accept the criminal justice system.  That does not square with the rehabilitation of the Applicant. 

72. It is surprising that the HKBA had expressed no reservation over the recommendation of the writer (although Mr Pang has informed the court that the HKBA does not align itself with the views expressed by the writer). 

73. The evidence demonstrates consistently that the Applicant does not accept any responsibility over his crime and is unremorseful.  It calls into question whether he is rehabilitated.

74. It is perhaps time for the HKBA to consider whether it should adopt a more pro-active approach in the discharge of its important function as gate-keeper.  In unusual cases like the present, there is a lot to be said that the Bar Council may, in addition to considering the views of the pupil masters, have a meeting with the applicant so as to satisfy itself that he is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the Bar (such a meeting was conducted in the case of Re M, supra, p.545, [3]).  This suggestion was echoed by Mr Pao. 

75. Both Mr Pang and Mr Grossman had highlighted a number of features which go to support the issue of rehabilitation, namely, the minimal likelihood of re-offending; the passage of 7 years since the conviction; the Applicant is now married; and the other favourable references given for the Applicant. 

76. I regret to say that what may be said favourably for the Applicant cannot outweigh the fact that he has, all along, shown no remorse nor acceptance of responsibility for his conviction.  He has said nothing in his evidence about feeling sorry for the victim. 

77. There is considerable force in Mr Pao’s submission that any indication of reform, eg, the passage of time and the conduct of the Applicant after conviction, is predicated upon his acceptance of responsibility for what is wrong. 

78. In the premises, looking at this case in the round and bearing in mind the principles stated above, I am unable to come the view that the Applicant has reformed himself despite his serious conviction.

79. For completeness, I should mention 2 other points.  Firstly, Mr Grossman suggested that a statement of remorse could have been made by an applicant simply to satisfy the court so as to achieve his purpose, and therefore a statement of such kind is of little value.  I agree with Mr Pao that the court would not simply look for a perfunctory statement. The evidence before the court will be scrutinized. 

80. Secondly, both the Applicant and the HKBA had made the point that the conviction is spent.  However, a specific exception in respect of the admission of barristers has been made to the provisions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance, Cap 297 (see s.4(1)(a)).  This serves to underscore the importance of the integrity of a member of the Bar.

Non-disclosure

81. I am inclined to agree with the SJ that the non-disclosure by the Applicant (see paras 19 to 25 and 31 to 36 above) should not be overlooked, although such conduct is not by itself decisive in this application.

82. Firstly, the Applicant was fully aware of the explicit requirement by the HKBA that he should disclose any disciplinary proceedings against him. 

83. Secondly, it was not for him to decide whether the disclosure of his conviction alone was sufficient.  As a lawyer, he must be taken to have known that the decision did not rest with him.  If in doubt, he could, and should, have consulted his pupil master(s).

84. Thirdly, the material not disclosed was clearly relevant to the issue of reformation.

85. Fourthly, at best the Applicant had failed to learn from his experience on late disclosure to the Board (see paras 13, 14, 33 and 35 above).  At worst, it was a deliberate non-disclosure.  In any case, such behaviour is not what one expects from a person seeking to demonstrate that he has reformed from the past and asks for permission to join the Bar.

Conclusion

86. For these reasons, I am unable to accede to the application, and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.  The parties had agreed that there should be no order as to costs.

87. Last but not least, I am grateful to all counsel for their assistance.