Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
I am genuinely confused..this new guy applied to withdraw his admission on the basis that he will not apply for admission in the next five years. He probably wants to withdraw so his name won’t get publicised like the rest (but it eventually did as we all know). Is it even necessary for him to withdraw since he probably won’t even be allowed to get admitted in the first place? Now because he applied to withdraw, he has to agree to these onerous conditions that don’t even apply to the five other cheats in the first place. I don’t understand the rationale for this at all.
|
about the five year thing, not clear based on public reporting that he applied to withdraw on that basis. more likely it was imposed by CJ as a compromise between dismissal asked for by AG and unconditional withdrawal. ("... allowed to withdraw his application to be called to the Bar after he agreed to two conditions set by the court.")\
(interesting legal question - any difference between withdrawal and dismissal of AAS? is there such a thing as res judicata for AAS?)
before we speculate that he is trying a strategy, where he seeks anonymity as some sort of exchange for withdrawal (as opposed to the adjournments for the six), we should probably look at the timelines.
[2022] SGHC 87 was heard on 13 april and decided on 18 april.
ST reports that he applied to withdraw his application on 22 april and sealing and redaction was only sought later. ie, not at time of his application. this is somewhat against the theory that he applied to withdraw to avoid further publicity.
it should also be noted that the AG's application to rescind the sealing order was heard and allowed in [2022] SGHC 93 on 27 april. therefore, at the time of his application, for all he knows, he can expect similar treatment to the six - adjournment and anonymity.