International Logistics For The Academic Misconduct

Issue

Issue

The issue in this situation is that whether the posts made by Lawley Knox have resulted in defamation or not

The tort of defamation is created when a person gas published unsubstantiated facts which have a negative impact on the reputation of another person. The main aim of defamation is to rectify any public perceptions and compensate the person aggrieved person form any harm which have been caused to him.

There are five elements of defamation according to the Defamation Act 2005. There must be a publication or communication which may include a speech or print. This has to be done to any third party like anyone other than the aggrieved. The matter which has been published or communicated has to be false or untrue mater or defamatory in nature. A defamatory matter refers to a statement which may damage the reputation of another person. The matter has to be in relation to the aggrieved party. The statement has to be made without any legal excuse.

There are a few defences available against a claim of defamation. These have been provided by the DA2005 and include justification, contextual truth, absolute privilege, public document, fair report, honest opinion, triviality and innocent dissemination.

The primary legislation which deals with defamation in Queensland includes the Defamations Act 2005. According to the legislations a person who has been defamed in Queensland can rely on the law provided by this legislation to make a claim as stated under section 11.

Resolution to the dispute can also be carried out without litigation as provided for under part 3 division 1 of the legislation. This may include an offer to amend the post.  This may also include apologies as provided for under section 20 of the Act. The defences which have been discussed above are provided under section 24-33 of the DA2005. The rules for recovering damages have been provided under the provisions of section 34-39. These sections signify that the aggrieved party is to be compensated for the loss which they have incurred in relation to the defamation. The cost or proceedings in defamation also have to be provided by the defendant in case they are found guilty of defamation as per divisions 4 of the Act.

In the case of Flegg v Hallet the court discussed the above rules in relation to defamation and held that if no defences are applicable the party who has made a false derogatory statement would be liable for defamation.

In the present situation it has been provided that the Alden Bentley found that the only way he could move the horse to the adjacent land was via the use of the highway. He had no intention of harming the horses or be cruel to them. Lawley Knox has been angry because he was not able to move forward in his car as the horses were taking time and crossing the road. In this situation he had made their publications. In the first publication he had made an allegation that Alden Bentley was stupid as he has blocked the highway. This allegation can 

State the law

be defended under the justification defence provided under section Alden Bentley. This is because a reasonable person not having knowledge about the circumstances may have found the actions of Alden Bentley to be stupid. However the second and third statements which have been made by Lawley Knox can be regarded as defenceless defamation.  This is because Lawley Knox has baselessly stated that Alden Bentley is harming animals having no proof of the same. Any reasonable person in his position would know that the allegations are not true. The allegations have been addressed to thousands of people. In addition because of the allegations made in relation to Alden Bentley, many of his clients have backed out of deals and he has also been subjected to hate trolls. There is also no lawful ground on which Lawley Knox has based the statements made by him. This means that all the elements of defamation discussed above have been satisfied and there is no defence which is available to Lawley Knox under the rules of the DA 2005.

Come to Conclusion

Coming to a conclusion it can be stated that Lawley Knox have defamed Alden Bentley by making derogatory comments on social media.

Synthesize the conclusion

It can be stated that the 2^nd and 3^rd statements which have been made by Lawley Knox have satisfied the elements of defamation and as no defence is available to Lawley Knox he is liable to compensate Alden Bentley.

Part B

To

The Client

Sub: Advice on admission as a lawyer after being caught for plagiarism

Respected Sir,

You have informed me about the situation that you have been caught by the University for Plagiarism in your first year. You are worried about the fact the fact that the incident may hamper your chances of being admitted as a lawyer. I have done my research on the topic and have based by advice of established facts and evidence.

I would like to bring to your notice a case which I got across while conducting a research on this topic. Being caught for plagiarism may affect your chances of being admitted as a lawyer in certain situation even if it may sound harsh. In order to become a lawyer it has to be shown by the applicants that they are “fit and proper” individuals. Under this requirement they need to provide information about any bankruptcy, criminal record and academic misconduct.  In the year 2007 stir had been caused in the legal community in relation to a case involving two law graduates. Both the students had been charged with academic misconduct because of high level of similarity in their assignments. They had been both provided zero for the assessments. In relation to being admitted as lawyers partial disclosure has been made by one of the students about the academic misconduct while the other did not make any disclosure at all.  It was admitted by the first student that the incident has taken place but full details had not been disclosed. The second student had subsequently admitted the fact that he had neglected the disclosing of the incident as the university had not formally referred to it.

Authority for the law

The council decided that the first student would not be eligible for being admitted as a lawyer because full and frank disclosure as required under the law had not been made by him. On the other hand the second student which had not made any disclosure had been admitted formally because the indiscretion had not been detected initially. However during the investigation in relation to the first student, the second had been called for the purpose of providing evidence and investigation on to the second student had been triggered. The court in this case provided a judgement that there is no doubt over the fact that even if a student has been admitted as a barrister or a solicitor and latter it has been identified that the certificate of the board on which he was provided admission should not have been granted, the court has sufficient powers to revoke the admission. The second student was also struck off the roll of legal practitioners because of his misrepresentation.

Academic misconduct and dishonest offences are considered to be very serious in relation to application as a lawyer. The primary reason which denied admission to both the first and the second student was that of not making a full and frank disclosure when needed. The board may have been more considerate in case the students had made full disclosure and particularly in case they showed that they should nevertheless be admitted as lawyers.

According to the facts stated by you, one of your friends have advised you not to disclose about the incident of academic misconduct which you had been involved in with respect to the admission process. Your friend is correct in the assertion that you may not be selected because of being involved in a situation of academic misconduct. However according to the we have discussed above it would be in  your best interest to make a full and frank disclosure with respect to the situation you had been involved in when you make an application for admission. This is because the primary reason which denied admission to both the first and the second student was that of not making a full and frank disclosure when needed. The board may have been more considerate in case the students had made full disclosure and particularly in case they showed that they should nevertheless be admitted as lawyers. In your case also if you do not disclose the facts at the time of admission you may be provided enrolment but the enrolment would be subjected to being revoked if the indiscretion has been discovered. Therefore, I would advise you that it is in your best interest to make a full and frank disclosure about the incident to the board. If you would be able to establish that you should nevertheless be admitted as a lawyer, your academic misconduct would not be a problem.

Yours Sincerely

Part C

Tenancy details

This agreement is between ----- (Landlord) with Cleaver Greene and Scarlett Engels (Tenants) for renting out the property located at -----. The terms and conditions of the rental agreement between the parties is as follows.

1. The rent which is to be paid by the tenants would be on a weekly basis
2. The rent is to be directly deposited into the bank account of the landlord by the tenants
3. The rent which has been agreed to be paid by the tenants to the landlord is $150 per week
4. The tenants are also required to pay $50 every week into a joint account for the purpose of paying out outgoings like internet, TV and electricity subscriptions.
5. The tenants are also required to pay a bond which is worth $300 for the purpose of addressing any potential damage which may be caused to the apartment or for non payment of bills.
6. The tenants would not have any access to the main bedroom which consists of an ensuite bathroom
7. The other two bedrooms would be used by the tenants and they will have access to the main bathroom
8. The car park which comes along with the apartment  would be subjected to use by the landlord and not the tenants
9. The tenants would be provided access to shared areas of the apartment such as dining room, laundry, small courtyard and the kitchen
10. The tenants are required under this agreement to keep the apartment clean and tidy at all times during their period of stay
11. The tenants are not allowed to be noisy or have parties in the apartment at weeknights under any circumstances
12. The tenants can have a party in the apartment during weekends
13. The agreement would be initiated after the end of the first semester and beginning of the second semester
14. The agreement would come to an end after a period of two years and would be subjected to the discretion of the landlord for further renewal
15. The agreement would also come to an end in case there is a failure to pay rent on the part of the tenants for a period of more than 3 months
16. The tenants are not allowed to sublease the property under any condition

The tenants must evacuate the property on the day the agreement comes to an end

Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)

legg v Hallet [2014] QSC 278

Nedim, U. (2018). Lawyer Struck Off for Cheating During Uni. [online] Sydney Criminal Lawyers. Available at: https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/lawyer-struck-off-for-cheating-during-uni/ [Accessed 23 Oct. 2018].

Parkes, Richard, et al. Gatley on libel and slander. No. Rev. 1 (Sweet & Maxwell, 2015).

Rolph, David. Reputation, celebrity and defamation law. (Routledge, 2016).