Basically in this case, Rebecca failed to mention that she got arrested in Thailand and had an academic breach in her application of admission to the court. I was wondering how to improve this paragraph in response to the question "has she completed her application in full." The requirement is to answer this question in IRAC method.

Rebecca has decided to omit two crucial points from her application for admission to practice as there is no record of her plagiarism breach at university and secondly, she was convicted overseas for a crime that is legal in Australia. Under rule 17 (1) of the Legal Professional Uniform Admission Rules 2015, those initiating applications for admission to practise must include 'any matter to which a reasonable applicant would consider that the Board might regard as not being favourable to the applicant when considering whether the applicant is currently of good fame and character and a fit and proper person to be admitted to the Australian legal profession.' In the matter of an application by Joy Onyeledo [2015] NTSC 60, the Supreme court held that the applicant's omission of academic dishonesty did not complete the requirement to make full and frank disclosure of relevant matters to the court.

Although Rebecca did include in her application that she failed to declare her income to centrelink, she omitted her plagiarism breach in the Civil Procedure assignment and her conviction in Thailand which may ultimately impact the board's perception of her as a 'fit and proper' person to be admitted as seen In the matter of an application by Joy Onyeledo [2015]. Although Rebecca may argue that there was no record of the academic misconduct and thus thought it was irrelevant, her duty to the court of making full and frank disclosures is her overarching obligation to be admitted to the legal field.

Moreover, rule 18 (2) of the Legal Professional Uniform Admission Rules 2015 (Admission rules) states that 'If the Board so requires, the applicant must obtain and provide to the Board a report from police in any country or jurisdiction determined by the Board, on the applicant's criminal history.' Rebecca's omission of her conviction is a breach of rule 18 (2) of the Admission Rules as she is required to provide a police report, regardless of which country and their respective laws, subsequently misleading the court in their assessment of her as a fit and proper person to be admitted as a legal practitioner. Therefore, Rebecca's application for admission to practise was likely to be incomplete.