Latest news with #PularaDevminieSomachandra
Malay Mail
3 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Singapore law graduate who hid plagiarism in Bar application named after court ruling
SINGAPORE, Aug 9 — A Singapore law graduate who failed to disclose past plagiarism incidents when seeking admission to the Bar — the process to become a qualified lawyer — has been publicly named after the court lifted an anonymity order, according to CNA. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon on Thursday republished his grounds of decision in the case, identifying Pulara Devminie Somachandra. 'I make this order because, in my judgment, the principle of open justice is the predominant and overriding interest in this case, and there are insufficient grounds for departing from it,' he said in his judgment, as cited by the Singapore-based media organisation. He added that anonymisation orders were 'a derogation' from the general rule that parties' identities be made public. Somachandra had plagiarised in Singapore's Part A Bar examinations in 2020 — a conversion exam for overseas-trained law graduates — and 'on occasion' in university, but did not disclose these offences in her Bar application. The court rejected her admission and imposed a minimum five-year exclusion period before she can reapply. According to CNA, she initially persuaded the court to temporarily withhold her identity, citing mental health risks. She submitted a memo from a private doctor stating she had suicidal thoughts and warning that a non-anonymised judgment posed an 'immediate risk' to her safety. The Chief Justice ordered interim anonymity while awaiting a psychiatric report from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) and the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) argued against continued anonymity. The Law Society proposed she undergo consistent psychological and psychiatric treatment at IMH, with a risk management plan, and that her anonymity be preserved until she reapplied for admission. Somachandra countered that revealing her name would mean her past misconduct would 'come back to haunt her, regardless of the progress she has made or may hope to make'. However, CNA reports that Chief Justice Menon said the 'default rule' of naming lawyers was of 'great importance' because the public must be assured that those admitted to the Bar are 'morally competent' to meet the profession's high standards. He stressed that withholding a name should only occur to 'avert an imminent and credible threat of real harm' — a 'high threshold' that had not been met. 'There is insufficient evidence to suggest that there is a substantial risk that Ms Somachandra's condition will likely deteriorate to such an extent that it would be a disproportionate consequence of lifting the anonymisation,' he said. Addressing her concerns about her past resurfacing, he said: 'It is contrary to the notion of repentance and rehabilitation for Ms Somachandra to now seek to sweep her past misconduct under the rug… While second chances ought to be given, the journey to repentance, rehabilitation and reintegration begins with the willingness to confront and to be honest and open about her past misconduct.' The Chief Justice also rejected the Law Society's suggestion to revisit the issue only if she reapplied for admission in five years, noting that delaying the decision could worsen matters by allowing the fear of eventual exposure to linger. CNA reported that Somachandra graduated from a UK university in 2019. She failed two Part A papers in 2020 and was found to have collaborated with another candidate, who was named as 'Ms Tan', when she resat the exams. The SILE concluded their answers contained matching passages. She passed the Part A exam in 2022 and the Part B exam — the final stage before Bar admission — in 2023, but omitted the plagiarism incidents from her application. In 2024, after the AGC contacted her university, she consented to release of information confirming 'moderate plagiarism' during her studies. The AGC, SILE and Law Society all opposed her admission and recommended the five-year exclusion.
CNA
3 days ago
- CNA
Chief Justice names law graduate who wanted to remain anonymous after plagiarism in exams
SINGAPORE: A law graduate who sought anonymity after being denied admission to the Bar for failing to disclose past plagiarism incidents has been named by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon. The Chief Justice on Thursday (Aug 7) chose to republish his grounds of decision and identify Ms Pulara Devminie Somachandra. "I make this order because, in my judgment, the principle of open justice is the predominant and overriding interest in this case, and there are insufficient grounds for departing from it," he said in his judgment. 'The principle of open justice entails, as a general rule, that the identities of the parties are made known to the public and anonymisation orders are a derogation from this principle,' he added. Ms Somachandra had plagiarised in the Part A Bar examinations in 2020 and on occasion in university, but had failed to disclose these offences when applying for admission to the Bar. She was not admitted to the Bar and a five-year minimum exclusionary period was imposed. She had requested her identity be kept anonymous in the original grounds of decision. The law graduate had produced a medical note from a private doctor stating that she had suicidal thoughts, and said a non-anonymised judgment posed an immediate risk to her health and safety. Chief Justice Menon then released his grounds of decision with Ms Somachandra's identity temporarily withheld on an interim basis, pending a psychiatric report from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) argued that the grounds of decision should not continue to be anonymised. Meanwhile, the Law Society proposed that Ms Somachandra undergo a period of consistent psychological and psychiatric treatment at IMH, as well as to create a risk management plan. In the meantime, the anonymisation should remain in force until she reapplies for admission after the minimum exclusionary period. Ms Somachandra argued that she should continue to be kept anonymous for several reasons. Among them, she said that the lifting of the anonymisation would mean her past conduct would "come back to haunt her, regardless of the progress she has made or may hope to make". INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE Chief Justice Menon said the default rule that the identities of lawyers must be made public is of "great importance", as questions of public interest regarding the character of the lawyer are required for admission to the Bar. These proceedings, which are open and public, also signal to the public that those who are admitted have been publicly assessed as "morally competent" to meet the high standards expected of members of the legal profession. If the publication of an applicant's name is sought to be withheld, it would typically only be warranted if it is required to "avert an imminent and credible threat of real harm". Calling it a high threshold, Chief Justice Menon said the harm must be grave and disproportionate when weighed against the interest of open justice. 'There is insufficient evidence to suggest that there is a substantial risk that Ms Somachandra's condition will likely deteriorate to such an extent that it would be a disproportionate consequence of lifting the anonymisation of the (grounds of decision),' he said. The facts, considered with her stated willingness to undergo treatment, "fall short of establishing an imminent and credible risk of grave and disproportionate harm to Ms Somachandra if the anonymisation" was lifted, he added. With regards to her argument that her past conduct would 'come back to haunt her', Chief Justice Menon said those who seek to be admitted to the Bar must put their character up for public scrutiny. "Moreover, it is contrary to the notion of repentance and rehabilitation for Ms Somachandra to now seek to sweep her past misconduct under the rug," he said. "While second chances ought to be given, the journey to repentance, rehabilitation and reintegration begins with the willingness to confront and to be honest and open about her past misconduct." He emphasised that information about a legal practitioner's character is 'even more important' given the ethical standards to which legal practitioners are held. The Chief Justice also said he was unpersuaded by the Law Society's proposal that the court should revisit the issue of anonymisation only if and when Ms Somachandra decides to reapply for admission to the Bar at the end of her minimum exclusionary period. It is 'quite arguable' that matters may be made worse since the fear of having her name published would hang over her for the next few years, he said. The court should also "not have to police" whether she has made progress in her recovery over the next five years or so, he added. "There must be some personal responsibility and willingness on Ms Somachandra's part to take steps towards her rehabilitation," said Chief Justice Menon. PLAGIARISM Ms Somachandra graduated from a university in the United Kingdom in 2019. To practise law in Singapore, law graduates must be admitted to the Bar by passing a set of exams known as Part B. Law graduates from approved overseas universities must also take another conversion examination known as Part A. After failing two papers in the Part A exam in 2020, she resat the exam, but some of her answer scripts were found to be similar to another candidate's, Ms Tan, with matching texts. The SILE concluded that she had collaborated with Ms Tan. Ms Somachandra eventually passed the Part A exam in 2022 and the Part B exam the following year. She applied to be admitted to the Bar but failed to disclose the incident in 2020 with the Part A exam. In 2024, the AGC contacted her university, and after Ms Somachandra consented for the information to be released, it stated that "moderate plagiarism" had occurred.
