Search

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are associated with overweight/obesity and linked to chronic diseases. A levy or tax on SSBs has been introduced in many jurisdictions globally as a way to lower sugar consumption and/ or reformulate lower sugar levels in order to address increasing rates of overweight and obesity. In this article we describe the various approaches to SSB taxation in these jurisdictions. We then explore the legal and policy landscape relevant to the introduction of an SSB levy in Australia. We argue that there is a mandate for the Australian government to introduce such a tax given the clear evidence that consumption, and therefore the adverse associated health outcomes, have a disproportionate impact upon those from lower socio-economic communities. We ultimately recommend that the tax take the form of an excise which focuses on changing industry practice, based on the success achieved by the United Kingdom tax. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers the legal and policy regulatory frameworks in Australia relevant to two of the key areas identified as central to managing and preventing obesity, namely, food labelling and junk food advertising. It does so against the backdrop of a global pandemic which resulted in a perfect storm: a global virus colliding with an obesity epidemic. The aetiology of the COVID-19 virus, and the isolation and shut down restrictions associated with combatting it, mean that introducing reforms in these key areas is, more than ever, a public health priority. This article provides important practical recommendations to modify legal and regulatory policy frameworks in the two key areas to address the obesity epidemic in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Situations in which a deceased person has died in the course of "fright, escape or selfpreservation'1 have long posed complex causation questions for the criminal law. The Western Australian Court of Criminal Appeal has had the opportunity in recent years to consider the situation where a victim's death follows threats or intimidation delivered by the defendant. In Yarran v The State of Western Australia, decided in 2019, the Court focused on the role that section 272 of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) plays in resolving the difficult causation issues which can arise in these sorts of cases. While the earlier case of TB v The State of Western Australia2 had resolved some of the questions associated with the operation of section 272, Yarran directly raised the issue of the victim's reaction to the threats or intimidation: what relevance should the "unreasonableness" or "disproportion" of a victim's response to an accused's threats have to the question whether the accused caused' that response under S272? Is the nature of the victim's response part of the legal causation inquiry, or does it only concern the criminal responsibility (scope of liability) inquiry within the excuse of Accident? This article explains the court's approaches to this question and highlights some of the more general, fundamental questions raised by the case around the relationship between the different causation provisions in the WA Criminal Code. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The provision of supported decision-making for people living with disabilities is an emerging area of practice and rights-based law reform, and is required under international law. Objectives: This qualitative study aimed to understand how Australian health and legal professionals conceptualised their professional roles in the practice of providing decision-making support for people living with dementia. Methods: The methods were informed by grounded theory principles. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 health and legal professionals involved in providing care or services for people with dementia. Interviews explored how professionals described their practice of providing support for decision-making and how they conceptualised their roles. The analysis was underpinned by the theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism. Results: Participants described providing support across a range of decision domains, some of which were specific to their professional role. Four key themes were identified: 'establishing a basis for decision-making', 'the supportive toolbox', 'managing professional boundaries' and 'individualist advocacy versus relational practice'. Participants identified a range of generic and specialised techniques they used to provide support for people with dementia. These techniques were applied subject to resource limitations and perceived professional obligations and boundaries. A continuum of professional practice, ranging from 'individualist advocacy' to 'relational practice' describes the approaches adopted by different professionals. Discussion: Professionals conceptualised their role in providing support for decision-making through the lens of their own profession. Differences in positioning on the continuum of 'individualist advocacy' through to 'relational practice' had practical implications for capacity assessment, engaging with persons with impaired decision-making capacity, and the inclusion of supporters and family members in decision-making processes. Further progress in implementing supported decision-making (including through law and policy reform) will require an understanding of these inter-professional differences in perceived roles relating to the practice of providing decision-making support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]