Search

The High Court decision in Pell v The Queen continues to be the subject of extensive academic controversy. In a pair of important articles, evidence and criminal law scholar Andrew Hemming has defended the Court's decision. This rejoinder critiques Hemming's defence (and, by extension, the High Court's decision) on three grounds. First, because the decision conflates unchallenged testimony with honest and reliable testimony. Second, because it relies on ad hoc probabilistic determinations of discrete and unreplicable historical events. Third, because it fails to answer a key epistemological question: how could the High Court know more about what really did or did not happen in that sacristy than the jury? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal philosophers and environmental activists concerned with transforming the human-Earth relationship typically focus on expanding the community of legal subjects to include the non-human. The limited success of this strategy prompts consideration of an alternative: expanding the concept of the human legal subject to facilitate mutually beneficial human- Earth relations. The abstract character of the rational autonomous individual normalises the pursuit of the individual life project with devastating consequences for the earth. The Cosmic Person introduced here is a Universe-centred, Earth-embedded multi-dimensional self that normalises an interest in the project of life itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the moral issues underlying abuses of company law. The author uses Hannah Arendt's concept of 'thoughtlessness' and explores moral theories justifying our company laws. The contradictions of corporate personality are examined with reference to domestic and international case studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]