Humzy-Hancock Case: Academic Misconduct and Plagiarism

STUDENT NO. S0179085
LAWS11057: INTRODUCTION
TO LAW ASSIGNMENT 1

1. OFFICIAL CITATION:
Humzy-Hancock
[2007] QSC 034
2. JUDGE: Justice Philip McMurdo
3. PARTIES: IN THE MATTER of
the Legal Profession Act 2004 (QLD) and the
Supreme Court (Legal Practitioner Admission) Rules 2004
IN THE MATTER of an Application by MR NICOLAS AMEEN
Humzy-HANCOCK for admission as a Legal Practitioner of
Queensland.
4. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS: The Applicant, Mr Nicolas Humzy-Hancock was alleged
academic misconduct during his law degree by the Legal
Practitioners Board. These instances are a combination of
collaboration and plagiarism. The case was centralising around
the question inadequate referencing indication of intention to
pass other’s work as his own. In other words, it was merely a
case of poor work and carelessness.
5. LEGAL ISSUE: There are four legal issues raised within this case which need to
be addressed and decide by McMurdo J.
i. Did Mr Humzy-Hancock, commit an academic
misconduct of collaboration?1 In contrary to the Griffith
Law School’s
The Assessment Policy and Procedures,
the critical question is whether or not Mr Humzy
knowingly provided a copy of his assignment to another
peer in 2003.
1
Humzy-Hancock [2007] QSR 034, 2 [2].

ii. In his assignment submission in 2005, did Mr. Humzy
missed to give adequate attribution to other’s work2?
Was there any intention from Mr Humzy-Hancock end
to pass off other’s work as his own?
iii. In Mr Humzy take-home exam again did he intentionally
pass off other’s works as his own, therefore committing
plagiarism?
iv. The last legal issue is to find out whether or not he is
guilty of academic misconduct. If he is found guilty then
according to s 9 suitability matters of the Legal
Profession Act 2007, he will not meet the requirements
of the Legal Practitioner Admission Board as of “good
fame and character” to apply for admission as a legal
practitioner.
6. KEY LAWS THAT THE COURT USE TO APPLY TO THE FACTS TO DETERMINE ITS VERDICT:
The critical law McMurdo J used was
The Assessment Policy and Procedures published by
Griffith Law School to determine whether Mr Humzy was guilty of Collaboration 3
7. WERE THERE ANY RULES OR POLICIES IN USE IN THE BACKGROUND FACTS? WHAT WERE THEY?
In particular, the policy revolves around academic misconduct particularly relating to plagiarism
and collaboration. The policies that underplay within Humzy Hancock case are;
1.
The Assessment Policy and Procedures Published by Griffith Law School.
2.
Legal Profession Act 2004 (QLD).
3.
Academic Misconduct Rule 2014 published by the Australian National
University.
8. DESCRIBE THE REASONING PROCESS APPLIED BY THE JUDGE
2
Humzy-Hancock [2007] QSR 034, 11 [38].
3
Humzy-Hancock [2007] QSR 034, 4 [9].