Search

Artificial intelligence (Al), including generative Al, has been identified as a profound opportunity for the judicial system due to the efficiency and cost savings it promises. Equally concerns have been raised about "fake law" due to generative Al hallucinating, and "fake evidence" created by malevolent actors. This article argues that the lawyer's compliance with their ethical duties to the court and the administration of justice, as well as duties of independence, competence and supervision, will assist in the effective use of Al and guard against a range of harms, such as Al misleading judges, causing unfairness and undermining public confidence in the judicial system. The lawyer's ethical obligations as a source of protection against the misuse of Al for the court system continue the historical collaboration between the judiciary and the legal profession in the provision of justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Restorative justice was proposed as an alternative to the court system. Therefore, the policymakers and the researchers are keen to see how this intervention works. Many studies have evaluated restorative justice programs, but most of them lack methodological rigour leading to perform this meta-analysis. This article involves literature search and review, data collection and analysis to examine whether restorative justice is more effective than the courts in Australia and the United States ('the US'). To this end, it first surveyed several benchmarks as success indicators in evaluating the 'effectiveness', including reducing recidivism, disposal time and costs and enhancing fair processes, and parties' satisfaction. After review, two outcome variables: recidivism and satisfaction were selected. The meta-analysis revealed that the restorative justice participants had 22% decreased odds (Odds Ratio = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.71, 0.86) than the court participants and restorative justice participants in the US were less likely to recidivate (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.49, 0.80) than that of in Australia (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73, 0.90). Further, the study found restorative justice participants were more satisfied than the court participants (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07, 1.21), and the court participants experienced the first re-offence more quickly after referral than the restorative justice participants (18 months vs 25 months). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Family violence is a prominent public health issue in Australia, and in accordance with its gendered nature, women and children face significant risk. Knowledge of family violence is both multidisciplinary and continuously growing, yet explorations of the experiences of female 'perpetrators' remain limited. This article discusses research on the misidentification of female victim-survivors as predominant aggressors within the context of Victoria's family violence intervention order (FVIO) system, which was conducted through interviews with eight Melbourne-based legal practitioners. To date, understanding women's experiences of misidentification in the FVIO system has been left under-researched. Whilst there are multiple explanations for the misidentification of predominant aggressors within other jurisdictions, this paper is particularly concerned with the intersection between manipulative techniques employed by abusers and the FVIO system. The findings of this research suggest that male perpetrators may use the FVIO system to commit 'systems abuse' by encouraging police officers to apply for a FVIO against the genuine victim-survivor. It is argued that there is a strong need for a greater recognition of systems abuse within the police and the judiciary in order to prevent the FVIO system from serving as a tool of abuse readily available to perpetrators of family violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article assesses the philosophical foundations and the practical remit of the common law offence of scandalising the judiciary (also known as 'scandalising contempt'), and finds that the continued existence of this offence as presently constituted cannot be justified. The elements and scope of this offence, it is suggested, are ill-defined, which is a matter of great concern given its potentially fierce penal consequences. Moreover, given the extent to which it may interfere with free expression of opinion on an arm of government, the offence's compatibility with the implied freedom of political communication guaranteed by the Australian Constitution is also discussed -- though it is noted that in most instances, prosecutions for the offence will not infringe this protection. The article concludes by suggesting that the common law offence must either by abolished by legislative fiat or replaced by a more narrowly confined statutory offence. It is suggested that an expression of genuinely held belief on a matter of such profound public interest as the administration of justice should not be the subject of proceedings for contempt of court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores how Australian courts have grappled with the challenges of changing context and a frenetic case load in their application of the rule against bias. In their efforts to keep this sacrosanct rule relevant and coherent they have employed three key tools of 'calibration': the 'fair-minded lay observer', the spectrum of standards, and a (re)emerging technique of sub-categorisation or 'speciation'. The lay observer has wearied, becoming awkwardly indistinct in important contexts; the spectrum approach has enjoyed an expanding importance but now appears to have reached its high-water mark; however, the 'speciation' approach has shown its precision and is perhaps the key to the next generation of cases. This article re-maps the bias rule in Australia by reference to these three tools of calibration, thereby placing the accumulating critique of the 'lay observer' test into clearer context. It also offers some predictions on the law's future trajectory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the enforceability of take or pay clauses in gas sales agreements in Australian courts. Recent case law has raised the possibility of take or pay clauses being deemed penal and void, particularly under the penalty doctrine in equity. Australian courts have made clear that a failure of any contractual stipulation would be sufficient to engage the penalty doctrine in equity - a lower threshold than the breach of contract required at common law. This article examines the recent jurisprudence and the penalty doctrine in Australia to determine the key conditions that are required for a contractual clause to be deemed a penalty. This article argues that take or pay clauses do not fall within the ambit of the penalty doctrine and should thus be valid and enforceable, especially in the context of the high capital projects in which it operates and the reciprocal benefits that the clause offers to the parties involved. This article also briefly examines the significant reform to the area by the English Makdessi case, which appears to have been adopted by the Australian High Court. A nuanced view of the traditional understanding of the mechanism has also been proposed in the article in an attempt to better represent the operation of the mechanism and argue that the clause is not and should not be construed as penal in nature or effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The history of Australian federal courts, from the creation of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in 1904 until now, is part of the broader history of how Australians have come to see themselves and their relationship to courts as institutions of an evolving Australian government. Although unremarked in current historical studies about Australian national identity, significant changes in the conception of the Australian court system occurred in parallel with fundamental shifts in the creation, formulation and discernment of national identity. This article considers the history of the Australian federal courts alongside the processes of the formation of Australian national identity, as explored by Curran and Ward. This approach reveals much about the strengths and weaknesses of the federal court system today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been growing interest in recent years in developing 'non-adversarial' forms of court based justice, and exploring the potential for courts to take a lead role in resolving the underlying issues that ensure repeated contact with the justice system for particular groups. Problem Oriented Courts, such as community courts, drug courts, family violence courts and the like, originated in the USA but have taken root in societies across the globe. This article emerges primarily out of research and policy development work intended to inform an initiative in Victoria Australia called the Next Generation Courts initiative, which sought mainstream the problem oriented approach by adopting the non-adversarial paradigm as the basis for all future court development in Victoria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers the author's reflection about judges and judgments working at a high court in Australia. The author recalls his first case as a Justice of the High Court in August 1972. He tackles the delivery of separate judgments in the early justices. He also shares his experience of joining the Court led by Chief Justice Barwick and the time where Sir Garfield was the chief justice.

The article discusses the challenge the three assumptions including contact with the court system, efficacy of restorative justice and juvenile involvement in crime that support juvenile justice in Australia. It further discusses the policy implications that might result from their abandonment. It also discusses ways to reform the juvenile justice policy by abandoning the three assumptions and paying attention to the evidence to reduce the risk of juvenile reoffending.

The existence and nature of "contract law" in Australia cannot be wholly disassociated from the court systems that have administered it. There may yet be life in "causes of action" derived from English law that have been displaced, at least in the popular imagination, by the concept of "contract". The history of "contract law" in New South Wales may offer practical insights into broader questions about Australian law. This article focuses light on: first, the development of contract law in Australia; secondly, the common law system of "issue pleading" retained in New South Wales after England and other Australian jurisdictions had embraced equity's "fact pleading" system in conjunction with the joint administration of law and equity in a Judicature Act system in the 19th century; and, thirdly, the Importance of court practice and procedure in the development of substantive law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the constitutional division in Australia. It mentions ways on how the High Court reacted on the tremendous scrutiny of the merits of the substantive executive decisions. Moreover, it features the importance of private clauses utilization in the functions of the judicial system of the country.

The article discusses the impact of general merits assessment absence on participation, public engagement, and administrative decisions in South Australia. It mentions the effects of failed arguments on public administration and justice accessibility on merit review. Moreover, it states reasons why the country trails behind in the implementation of justice reform.

The article presents a speech by Justice Garry Downes, delivered during the biennial Canberra Conference of the Institute, on Future Directions, where he talked about the future directions of administrative law in Australia. Moreover, the other topics discussed in the evetn include the utilization of technology in decision making, automated decisions, and ways on how the Administrative Appeals Tribunal handles future and present decisions.

The article offers information on the emerging trends of judicial decision making and judicial review approaches in Australia. It presents the importance of emerging judicial themes in the establishment of public litigation laws in the country. Moreover, it presents different court cases that explores the outer administrative boundaries of the law.

This paper examines the recent approach of the High Court in Australia to interpreting the Copyright Act 1968, and in particular the role and the usefulness of legislative context in that interpretation.There is no doubt that copyright law is complex. There is also little doubt that it has become increasingly complex both in its application and its terms, since the 1968 Act came into effect inAustralia. The law is required to operate in a fast changing environment and one in which there are many divergent interests at stake. At the same time, the courts’ approach to statutory interpretation has changed in recent years, with a renewed focus on context.Despite this judicial mandate to use context in interpreting legislation, there are many problems in its effect. First, the law making process is one which is, at times, shrouded in mystery as to its process and lack of clarity about the policy behind the law. This context or the purpose or object of the statute, can be impossible to ascertain. Law making involves several stages, all of which have the potential to give rise to distort or obscure the purpose or context of the law and these are considered in part one of this article. In part two, the recent approach of the High Court of Australia in determining context in copyright law will be considered. Suggestions will be made for reform which could improve the availability of reliable context to assist the courts in statutory interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on the shift of court system and its impact on the access to justice for complainants of discrimination complaints in Australia. In this regard, a study was conducted to determine the impact of the changes of hearing functions of Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) to the federal courts. It reveals that the two related changes in court system contribute a subsequent difficulties experienced by complainants to obtain access to justice to achieve adjudication of discrimination claims.

The first Neighbourhood Justice Centre has recently been set up in Australia and forms part of a worldwide neighbourhood justice movement which focuses upon local justice solutions. These models are based around community courts operating as part of broader justice initiatives which reposition the relationship between the community and the justice system. This article explores the drivers of neighbourhood court solutions and systemic issues which may impact upon the success of these community court models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the differences between the approaches of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the Agreement on Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement (the Trans-Tasman Treaty) to the exercise of jurisdiction in Australia and New Zealand. It states that Choice of Court Convention aims to improve the extraterritorial extension of judgments. It emphasizes that the preferable policy and preferable practice in sorting the jurisdiction is the alignment of the rules.

The article discusses the practices of the Australian courts in enforcing arbitration and jurisdiction agreements. It states that majority of the cases do not implement derogation clauses, which is enforced when a strong ground for non-enforcement exists. Moreover, the arbitration agreements are more likely enforced by the courts than the jurisdictional agreements. Furthermore, the Hague Choice of Courts Convention aims to remove the court's discretion in deciding whether to enforce the agreements of the parties.

A central feature of the Australian court system is the use of cross-examination as the main means by which eyewitness evidence is tested. The ability to test evidence by cross-examination has come to be viewed as a right of an accused. This right, however, is not absolute - it is qualified by the interests of the community, which include the protection of victims of child sexual assaults. Recent studies have shown that cross-examination, far from ensuring that the truth is revealed, often causes inaccuracies in the evidence of children. This is due to the strange language of the courtroom (usually completely foreign to children), the linguistic techniques and other tactics employed by defence counsel, and the true purpose of cross-examination in child sexual assault cases: an attempt by the defence to create confusion and inconsistencies. Studies also show that jurors tend to apply their preconceived views on sexual assaults when evaluating the evidence of children. Despite the power to do so and despite training, judicial officers are often reluctant to intervene to protect child sexual assault victims when giving evidence. All of this means that cross-examination in child sexual assault trials can be as traumatic for the victim as the sexual assault itself. This article thus argues that the questions that can be asked of child sexual assault victims should be limited so as to make their experience less traumatic and maximise the accuracy of their evidence. It concludes by suggesting provisions that could be enacted in all Australian jurisdictions to achieve these aims, through the elimination of repetitive and suggestive questions, limits on accusing child witnesses of lying, and the use of professional intermediaries who evaluate children's ability to answer a question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the judicial barriers to tax avoidance in common law jurisdiction in Australia. The productivity of common law jurisdiction has been more than matched by the judiciaries in the regimes. The legislatures in many common law jurisdictions have been active in seeking to counter the threats to national coffers posed by tax avoidance activity. It has been suggested that the courts must consider the statute interpreted in a purposive fashion as required by the provision.

The article presents a comparison between the divergent legal systems of the United States and Australia. It analyzes key legal decisions from each countries with respect to the communal view of indigenous rights and intellectual property. It indicates that the differing experiences of the legal regimes in both countries are suggestive of the wide diversity among national approaches of countries with indigenous residents.

The article analyzes the functioning of judiciary in a democratic society with reference to two recent legal issues that occurred in Australia. The controversy surrounding the "Joh Jury" television re-enactment and the comments made by a South Australian judge in a recent domestic violence case have raised much public attention while questioning the justice and fairness of legal systems in democratic societies. Such issues fade the effectiveness of a nation's judicial system and often affect the judicial independence.

The article discusses the Victim Impact Statement (VIS), a systematic and structured method used to ensure the court's awareness of vital information relative to the impact of crime on the victim, which is adopted in Australia. It mentions that in 1985, an approved declaration regarding fair treatment and aid for victims of crime has been established by the General Assembly of the United Nations along with the role of victim in the criminal trial and sentencing process which has elicited controversy. However, the concept of crime as an offense against the state has resulted in several economic and psychological dilemmas for crime victims as well as their perceptions of injustice.

The article offers methods to develop profiles on the structure of remand populations to determine an appropriate strategy in relation to prison overcrowding in Australia. It highlights the concepts of mean time served and intake rate in reducing the size of remand populations. It also stresses the need to increase the efficiency of the court system to ensure that the time spent on detainees be kept as short as possible. The impact of the provision of modern remand centres in Adelaide, South Australia and Melbourne, Victoria in reducing the reluctance of magistrates to remand suspected offenders in custody is also mentioned.

This article reviews the Australian Family Court system. In describing the history, the author argues that the system is still incomplete: each state or territory has a different division of labour between their own and the federal courts. The Australian system has been criticised, not least from senior members of the judiciary in Australia. But the author concludes that some of the criticisms are exaggerated, and the benefits have been ignored. The fundamental problem is still the low status and priority given to children and families by lawyers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allegations of child sexual abuse provide complex challenges to family court systems. Despite being highly criticised in the academic research, this analysis examined whether and how the gendered concepts of parental alienation syndrome or parental alienation more broadly are still being used to rebut allegations of child sexual abuse in family court cases in Australia. Parental Alienation is broadly understood as the deliberate actions of one parent to disrupt and prevent children's ongoing relationships with their other parent, in this case through allegations of abuse. We examined 357 publicly available judgements of the Family Court of Australia between 2010 and 2015. Judgements were analysed qualitatively for key themes using N-VIVO software. Five themes emerged in the data, including use of the concept of parental alienation, coaching, mothers as manipulative, mothers as mentally ill, and impact of the best interest of the child. Results indicate that judgements made in the Family Court of Australia are both similar and divergent from those made in other jurisdictions internationally. The complexity of responding to allegations of child sexual abuse for parents is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss the importance of dealing with conflict through means other than litigation both in Australia and at international level. They focus on the appropriateness of dispute resolution methods and provide a strategic approach in context of unified dispute resolution system. They further examine the ways in which the courts and alternative dispute resolution processes complement each other.

The author reflects on the procedures of various states in Australia in dealing with the appointment of silk. He argues that when dealing with the appointment, one must ask why it is helpful to have the senior counsel system and what appointment as silk should signify. He asserts that not all appointees deserved the recognition that the appointee was a superior and experienced advocate, as some were political appointments, while some very capable persons had to wait for a change in government.

The article examines statistics of funding for federal and state courts in Australia released by the Productivity Commission. The data suggest that the funding provided to the Federal Court is in excess of that of all other courts. The cost to taxpayers of finalizing a case in the Federal Court is higher than in the Supreme Courts of New South Wales or Victoria.