DOCSLIB.ORG

2014 2015 14 September 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2014 2015 14 September 2015 2014 2015 14 September 2015 The Honourable Linda Dessau AM, Governor of Victoria Government House Melbourne Vic 3004 Dear Governor, On behalf of the Council of Magistrates, I present the Magistrates’ Court Annual Report for the year 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 pursuant to section 15(3) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. Yours sincerely PETER LAURITSEN Chief Magistrate The Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (the Court) is an innovative, accessible and responsive court that provides quality service to the Victorian community. The Court sits at 51 metropolitan and regional locations and is comprised of 96 magistrates, 13 reserve magistrates, 10 coroners, 8 judicial registrars, 624 staff and 61 elders and respected persons. 2 10 26 About the The Year at a Glance Magistrates’ Court Operations Organisational Chart Our Judiciary Coordination Summary The Year at a Glance Structure of the Judiciary Civil Jurisdiction Summary Message from the Structure of Court Judicial Registrars Chief Magistrate Administration Legislative Reform Message from the Internal Committees Making a Difference Chief Executive Officer Our Services Statewide Perspective Our Staff 50 73 85 Specialist Courts Financials and Services and Statistics Directories Court Support and Detailed breakdown on Directory of Diversion Services data including 5-year Magistrates and Drug Court trends Judicial Registrars Intervention Orders Contact details for all Family Law Jurisdiction Court venues Koori Court Neighbourhood Justice Centre 1 Magistrates’ Court of Victoria 2014-15 Annual Report The Year at a Glance Magistrates’ Court of Victoria Organisational Chart CHIEF MAGISTRATE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Mr Peter Lauritsen Mr Andrew Tenni DEPUTY CHIEF MAGISTRATES DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATE AND MANAGER METROPOLITAN Mr Barry Braun Ms Felicity Mr Robert Kumar Mr Lance Martin Mr Daniel Muling Ms Jelena Popovic COURTS Broughton Ms Simone Shields SUPERVISING MAGISTRATES MANAGER REGIONAL COURTS CIVIL CRIMINAL DRUG COURT FAMILY VIOLENCE AND Mr Keith Turner FAMILY LAW Mr Barry Braun Mr Charlie Rozencwajg Mr Tony Parsons Ms Felicity Broughton and Ms Kate Hawkins MANAGER SPECIALIST COURTS AND COURT SUPPORT SERVICES KOORI COURT AND SEX VOCAT Mr Robert Challis COURT SUPPORT AND OFFENCE LIST DIVERSION SERVICES Ms Amanda Chambers Mr Andrew Capell and Ms Jelena Popovic (to 5 June 2015) Ms Johanna Metcalf MANAGER CORPORATE SERVICES Ms Belinda Wallington (from 15 June 2015) Ms Simone Richardson STATE COORDINATING MAGISTRATE AND REGIONAL COORDINATING MAGISTRATES MANAGER STATE BARWON SOUTH WEST BROADMEADOWS DANDENONG IT SYSTEMS COORDINATING MAGISTRATE Mr Gavin Russell Mr Franz Holzer Mr Ronald Saines Mr Robert Kumar Mr Jack Vandersteen MANAGER PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONAL FRANKSTON GIPPSLAND HEIDELBERG GRAMPIANS DEVELOPMENT UNIT Mr Clive Alsop (to 31 Ms Michelle Hodgson (to Mr Iain McKinnon Mr Paul Smith December 2014) 2 January 2015 Ms Susan Wakeling Ms Fiona Hayes (from 1 Ms Cynthia Toose (from January 2015) 5 January 2015) STATE COORDINATING REGISTRAR HUME LODDON MALLEE NEIGHBOURHOOD RINGWOOD Mr Brett Cain JUSTICE CENTRE Ms Stella Stuthridge Mr Richard Wright Mr David Fanning Mr Nunzio La Rosa MANAGER OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE Mr Joseph Walker SUNSHINE Ms Noreen Toohey DIRECTOR NEIGHBOURHOOD JUSTICE CENTRE Ms Kerry Walker Please refer to page 86 for the full Directories. 2 Magistrates’ Court of Victoria 2014-15 Annual Report YEAR AT A GLANCE Criminal Law Statistics – more on page 75 CRIMINAL CRIMINAL MATTERS MATTERS FINALISED INITIATED 45,762 MATTERS PENDING 16% 13% 275,552 247,025 NUMBER OF 7% 89.9% COMMITTAL 2,839 CASES PENDING PROCEEDINGS CASES FINALISED > 12 MTHS WITHIN SIX MONTHS 10% FINALISED Civil Law Statistics – more on page 79 NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS ISSUED FINALISED 41,884 OR FILED 9% 17% AT HEARING DEFENDED CLAIMS FINALISED WITHIN 79% 6 MONTHS 29,720 7,570 1,695 6% DEFENDED CLAIMS DEFENCES DEFENDING FINALISED AT ARBITRATION AND DEFAULT FILED CLAIMS ORDERS PENDING FINALISED NO CHANGE 6% 1% Intervention Order Statistics – more on page 82 INTERVENTION ORDER APPLICATIONS FINALISED (INCLUDING 23,365 16% 10,055 INTERIM ORDERS) FINALISED CASES WITH ONE OR INTERVENTION ORDER MORE INTERIM ORDERS MADE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BY AFTER HOURS 72,625 SERVICE INTERVENTION ORDER APPLICATIONS FINALISED (EXCLUDING INTERIMS) 10% FAMILY LAW 49,260 8% MATTERS 1,088 FINALISED 3 Magistrates’ Court of Victoria 2014-15 Annual Report Message from the Chief Magistrate It is with pleasure that I present the Annual Report for the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria for the year ending 30 June 2015. Heidelberg in custody are brought too often to the Program; $1.5 million for building works Court. to accommodate these additional staff There are 66 venues for all courts During 2014, the Court received monies and $2.75 million to improve safe throughout the state, the Magistrates’ waiting areas within the Court. Court operates from 51. The Court to install modern audio-visual systems These staff make up an important part divides the state into 12 regions, each to supplement the existing system. The existing system is old with little capacity. of the existing Family Violence Court with a headquarter venue. Heidelberg By April 2015, this system started. In the Division. Since its inception, the Division is an instance. It has many courtrooms. May budget, the Court received monies has existed at only two of the Court’s The idea of headquarter venues arose sufficient to replace the old system and 12 regions. The additional staff will now in the 1980s with the closure of many put the new system into venues where give coverage to most of the regions. single courtroom venues and the there had been none before. They are stepping stones to the full transfer of their work to larger venues. Also last year, I linked this issue with expansion of the Division, if thought Over the weekend of 16 and 17 the rapid increase in the numbers of appropriate. Naturally enough, a key February 2015, the Heidelberg persons in custody. I expressed fear aspect of the Court’s submission to the courthouse was flooded, causing as to the effect of the abolition of the Royal Commission into Family Violence significant damage. All of the suspended sentence of imprisonment was the expansion of the Division. magistrates and part of the staff in this Court. My fear has subsided The Court started fast tracking of were relocated. Most of the cases, through two measures. First, Parliament criminal proceedings arising out of magistrates and staff came to the amended the Sentencing Act 1991 family violence incidents at Dandenong Court at Melbourne. Some went to extend the length of a community on 1 December 2014. It aimed to to Broadmeadows and Ringwood. correction order in this court; and have all such proceedings finished Proceedings in the Children’s Court extended the length of a term of within 16 weeks of it entering the went to that court at Melbourne. On 6 imprisonment, which could be coupled Court. Experience shows that delays in July, the rest of the staff were relocated, with a community correction order. finishing these matters lead to additional mainly to Melbourne. Second, the Court of Appeal delivered incidents, often intensifying in severity. The fact that these measures have its guideline judgment in Boulton and The Police experienced unexpected worked as well as they have is a others v R [2014] VSCA 342. problems at Dandenong, which have testament to the skill and dedication of now been solved. These problems all involved. Family Violence delayed the start of fast tracking at Broadmeadows and Shepparton. I Non-production of persons in In October 2014, the previous State expect it will start there shortly. Government announced it would spend custody It avoids the need for that person to $150 million over five years on various travel to Melbourne and wait at court Last year, I spoke of the non-production family violence initiatives. The Court will until the matter is heard. of persons in custody and the measures receive: $15.39 million over five years to taken to overcome the problem. employ extra family violence registrars, Those measures have been largely applicant and respondent support successful. The longer-term solution workers; $9.55 million over four years lies in technology. Too many persons to expand the Court Integrated Support 4 Magistrates’ Court of Victoria 2014-15 Annual Report Security Acknowledgements Security in the Court has three As I said last year, the non-production aspects: the safety of certain litigants issue has taxed many of the Courts. I from other litigants; the safety of court thank my judicial colleagues, registrars staff, including judicial officers and and staff for their efforts in coping with the safety of those persons using the this issue as well as others, including services of the Court. the situation at Heidelberg. Dealing with parties to family violence incidents has highlighted safety within the courthouses. The Court is undertaking a safety audit. Separately, it is now receiving monies to improve safety. The cost of the necessary Peter Lauritsen changes far exceeds the available Chief Magistrate monies so the Court will deal with the most pressing. Security in the other categories is inadequate across the venues of the Court. In some, it is much better than in others. In regional Victoria, the level of security is poor. Courtlink The Court’s case management system is called ‘Courtlink’. It is very old. During the year, the Court replaced its mainframe with a new one. The old mainframe will be located in Sydney. This will enable a far quicker recovery of data in the event of a disaster in Melbourne. It has a secondary benefit. It will allow more time for finding a suitable replacement for Courtlink. A consulting firm is examining the Court’s needs for a replacement.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Local Court of New South Wales Annual Review 2019
    Local Court of New South Wales Annual Review 2019 Contents Foreword by Chief Magistrate of New South Wales 2 1. An overview of the Local Court 5 Jurisdictions and Divisions 6 The Magistrates 8 Chief Magistrate’s Executive Office 14 The work of the Local Court registries 15 2. Court operations during 2019 16 Criminal jurisdiction 17 Civil jurisdiction 20 Coronial jurisdiction 21 3. Diversionary programs and other aspects of the Court’s work 25 Diversionary programs 26 Technology in the Local Court 30 4. Judicial education and community involvement 32 Judicial education and professional development 33 Legal education in the community and participation in external bodies 36 Appendices 39 The Court’s time standards 40 The Court’s committees 41 2019 Court by Court statistics 42 1 Foreword by Chief Magistrate of New South Wales At the conclusion of the foreword to the 2018 The Local Court is no longer a relatively small Annual Review I expressed the view that ingredient of our justice system confined to dealing the Local Court had reached the limit of its with relatively minor matters. This is still part of its capacity to sustain its performance against its makeup however the Court is regularly engaged in Time Standards without an increase in judicial the finalisation of a steadily increasing category of resources. The year 2019 saw no increase more and more serious criminal offences. in the number of magistrates despite advice It is not uncommon for a magistrate to find from the Court to government that to maintain themselves dealing with dishonesty or money a sensible balance between expectations and laundering offences involving sums of money in outcomes, without unduly prejudicing the the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    [Show full text]
  • View Annual Report
    Annual Report Judicial Commission of NSW 2012–13 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13 The Judicial Commission of NSW is an independent statutory corporation formed in 1986 This annual report summarises the Contents Judicial Commission’s activities and performance for 2012–13 against 2012–13 highlights ..................................1 our main objectives, strategies and Our profile.........................................2 targets. We also report on our financial Our history ........................................3 results for the year and outline our The year in brief: key focus areas.......................4 strategic focus for 2013–14. The year ahead.....................................5 Performance results for 2012–13 .......................6 This is our 26th annual report. Last year’s annual report gained a Gold President’s foreword ................................8 Award in the 2013 Australasian Chief Executive’s message...........................10 Reporting Awards. Members of the Judicial Commission ..................12 Our executive team ................................15 This and earlier annual reports are Continuing judicial education program ...................16 available on our website at Research and sentencing program ....................26 www.judcom.nsw.gov.au Examining complaints ..............................34 Engaging with our partners ..........................42 Our people .......................................48 Our governance policies and processes ................54 The Honourable Gregory Smith
    [Show full text]
  • Victims of the System Papers & Presenters
    FOURTEENTH BIENNIAL CONFERENCE JUNE 2013 VICTIMS OF THE SYSTEM PAPERS & PRESENTERS John Elferink MLA, NT Attorney-General & Minister for Justice Aged 46, John Elferink was born in the Netherlands, moving to Darwin as a young child. He joined the NT Police as a 17 year-old cadet, rising to the rank of Sergeant, and was working as an Alice Springs based policeman at the time of his surprise victory in the outback seat of MacDonnell at the 1997 election. Mr Elferink was re-elected in 2001, and held the seat until 2005. In 2008 he was elected to the seat of Port Darwin. While in the police force he undertook a Bachelor of Arts by correspondence. While a parliamentarian, he did likewise to obtain a Bachelor of Laws, and was admitted to practice in 2009. His vision for his electorate is crime to be a rarity rather than constant. Trevor Riley CJ (NT Supreme Court) – “Victims of the System: a view from the Bench” The theme of the conference is Victims of the System. The sessions identify a variety of people who may presently be regarded as victims of the system. This paper will look at the relationship between the Judiciary and the other arms of government and comment upon the prospect that, rather than solving perceived problems, recent and proposed legislative schemes may create further victims. Trevor Riley was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in 2010, having been a Justice of the Court since 1999. Chief Justice Riley had practiced at the Northern Territory Bar since 1985, and was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Impartiality
    CONSULTATION PAPER AND BACKGROUND PAPERS JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY APRIL 2021 The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) was established on 1 January 1975 and operates in accordance with the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). The office of the ALRC is at Level 4, Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Courts Building, 119 North Quay, Brisbane QLD 4000. Postal Address: PO Box 12953, George Street QLD 4003 Telephone: within Australia (07) 3248 1224 International: +61 7 3248 1224 Email: [email protected] Website: www.alrc.gov.au CONTENTS Judicial Impartiality Consultation Paper i The Law on Judicial Bias: A Primer JI1-1 Recusal and Self-Disqualification JI2-1 The Federal Judiciary – the Inquiry in Context JI3-1 Conceptions of Judicial Impartiality in Theory and Practice JI4-1 Ethics, Professional Development, and Accountability JI5-1 Cognitive and Social Biases in Judicial Decision-Making JI6-1 The Fair-Minded Observer and its Critics JI7-1 CONSULTATION PAPER JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY APRIL 2021 This Consultation Paper reflects the law as at 30 April 2021. The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) was established on 1 January 1975 and operates in accordance with the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). ALRC publications are available to view or download free of charge on the ALRC website: www.alrc.gov.au/publications. If you require assistance, please contact the ALRC. ISBN: 978-0-6482087-9-2 Citation: Australian Law Reform Commission, Judicial Impartiality: Consultation Paper (CP 1, 2021) Commission Reference: ALRC Consultation Paper 1, 2021 © Commonwealth of Australia 2021 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Passive Smoking' Defence Clears Woman of Drug Driving As Research Casts Doubt on Roadside Testing ABC North Coast by Gemma Sapwell Posted Thu 23 May 2019, 6:28Am
    'Passive smoking' defence clears woman of drug driving as research casts doubt on roadside testing ABC North Coast By Gemma Sapwell Posted Thu 23 May 2019, 6:28am PHOTO: Police officers take saliva swabs from drivers as part of the roadside drug driving tests. (ABC North Coast: Gemma Sapwell ) The accuracy of drug driving tests has been called into question RELATED STORY: Calls to relax Canberra's drug- after a landmark court ruling and new research by a leading driving laws as the ACT looks to legalise cannabis academic. RELATED STORY: Medicinal cannabis driving plan 'inconsistent' with road safety objectives Data collected by Sydney University has revealed roadside mobile saliva EXTERNAL LINK: Magistrate questions NSW drug tests returned inaccurate results more than 20 per cent of the time when driving testing program testing oral fluids for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis. Researchers at the university's Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics conducted hundreds of tests on drivers with varying levels of THC in their system to study whether there was any link between cannabis and driver impairment. The program's academic director Iain McGregor said the research, which is yet to be published, raised concerns. "The tests are particularly poor at detecting when people have a lot of THC in their system so they can be really stoned and getting a negative test," he said. PHOTO: A driving simulator is used in the Sydney University research into THC impairment. (Supplied: Professor Iain McGregor ) But he said what was even more alarming was the number of false positives recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Local Court Annual Review
    Local Court of New South Wales Annual Review 2010 Contents Foreword by Chief Magistrate of New South Wales 2 1. An overview of the Local Court 4 Jurisdictions and divisions 5 The Magistrates 8 Chief Magistrate’s executive office 13 The work of the Local Court registries 14 2. Court operations during 2010 15 Criminal jurisdiction 16 Civil jurisdiction 18 Coronial jurisdiction 19 Industrial jurisdiction 22 Mental health 23 3. Diversionary programs and other aspects of the Court’s work 24 Diversionary programs 25 Technology in the Local Court 29 4. Judicial education and community involvement 31 Judicial education and professional development 32 Legal education in the community and participation in external bodies 34 Appendices 39 The Court’s time standards 40 The Court’s committees 41 2010 Court by Court statistics 43 1 Foreword by Chief Magistrate of New South Wales It is with pleasure that I present the Local Court 20 percent in the first year of the new scheme’s Annual Review for 2010, a year which marked operation. To this day, an increasingly large the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the number of indictable offences continue to be Local Courts of New South Wales. determined to finality in the Local Court. On 1 January 1985, upon the commencement As the jurisdiction of the Local Court has of the Local Courts Act 1982, the Local Courts developed, so too has the magistracy. Unlike assumed the jurisdiction previously exercised by the stipendiary magistrates of the Courts of the Courts of Petty Sessions and magistrates Petty Sessions, who were public servants were for the first time afforded the status of whose remuneration was set under the Public independent judicial officers.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Education Review
    Bond University Legal Education Review Volume 29 Issue 1 2019 Do Law Clinics Need Trigger Warnings? Philosophical, Pedagogical and Practical Concerns Kate Seear Monash University _____________________________________________________________________________________ Follow this and additional works at: https://ler.scholasticahq.com/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Licence. DO LAW CLINICS NEED TRIGGER WARNINGS? PHILOSOPHICAL, PEDAGOGICAL AND PRACTICAL CONCERNS KATE SEEAR∗ I INTRODUCTION In recent years, there has been growing concern about poor mental health among both law students and lawyers. 1 Concerns about the mental health of law students and lawyers are often traced back to the mid-1980s in North America, emerging from a series of studies that examined lawyers’ and law students’ physical and mental health and wellbeing, rates of alcohol and other drug use, suicidal ideations and more. In Australia, where I am based, these concerns are also the subject of considerable debate and attention. Several scholars attribute the Australian interest in these issues to the publication of the landmark Courting the Blues report in 2009.2 Following the publication of that report, there has been something of an explosion of work3 in this space, and a series of initiatives designed to address mental health and wellbeing, both at law school and among practitioners. In 2006, for ∗ Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University. 1 I am indebted to my PhD student Claire Carroll for bringing much of this literature to my attention, and to the work of scholars such as Paula Baron and Christine Parker, for their collation and analysis of it.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Annual Review
    The Land and Environment Court of NSW Annual Review 2009 1 Contents 01 Foreword from Chief Judge 26 5. Court Performance 02 1. 2009: An Overview ❚ Overall caseload ❚ Court performance ❚ Court performance by class of jurisdiction ❚ Reforms and developments ❚ Measuring Court performance ❚ Education and community ❚ Output indicators of access to involvement justice ❚ Consultation with court users • Affordability 06 2. Court Profi le • Accessibility ❚ The Court • Responsiveness to the needs ❚ Statement of purpose of users ❚ The Court’s jurisdiction ❚ Output indicators of ❚ The Court’s place in the court effectiveness and effi ciency system • Backlog indicator • Delivery of reserved judgments ❚ Who makes the decisions? • Clearance rate • The Judges • Attendance indicator • The Commissioners ❚ Appeals • The Registrars ❚ Complaints ❚ Appointments and retirements • Complaints received and ❚ Supporting the Court: the fi nalised Registry • Patterns in complaints 14 3. Casefl ow Management 49 6. Education and Community ❚ Introduction Involvement ❚ Overview by class of jurisdiction ❚ Continuing professional ❚ Types of directions hearings development ❚ Class 1 hearing options • Continuing professional ❚ Alternative Dispute Resolution development policy • Conciliation • Annual Court conference • Mediation • Twilight seminar series • Neutral evaluation • National Mediator Accreditation • 360 degree feedback program 21 4. Reforms and Developments • Other educational activities ❚ Mining jurisdiction ❚ Performance indicators and ❚ Transfer of civil proceedings program evaluation between courts ❚ Education and participation in ❚ Amendments to Court rules the community ❚ International Framework for ❚ Individual Judges’ and Court Excellence Commissioners’ activities ❚ Sentencing database for environmental offences 74 Appendix 1 – Court Users Group 76 Appendix 2 – Court Committees LEC Annual Review 2009 2 Foreword From Chief Judge This Review provides information on litigation in the Court, its human resources and its the Court, the performance in the year under review.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaker Profiles and Presentation Abstracts
    SPEAKER PROFILES AND PRESENTATION ABSTRACTS NICM HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE SYMPOSIUM 12 AUGUST 2021 MEDICINAL CANNABIS: RESEARCH, REGULATION AND EDUCATION Health Research Institute NICM HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE – MEDICINAL CANNABIS RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM AUGUST 2021 1 PROFESSOR DENNIS CHANG WELCOME ADDRESS Director, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University Dennis Chang is the Director of NICM Health Research Institute and a Professor of Pharmacology. He is also the lead of NICM Health Research Institute’s Healthy Hearts Research Program. His research interests include clinical and pharmacological studies of herbal medicine and other complementary medicine interventions at the Institute. As the leading investigator of several significant clinical trials, Professor Chang’s research projects have centred around evaluating herbal medicine, yoga and tai chi for the treatment of dementia, mild cognitive impairment, coronary heart disease, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. He has also linkedin.com/in/prof-dennis-chang been involved in preclinical research to evaluate molecular mechanisms and synergistic interactions of active components of herbal medicine. Professor Chang’s research has been published in a broad range of high-quality peer-reviewed journals such as British Journal of Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Drug, and Journal of Translational Medicine. His research has been supported by various competitive funding agencies, governments and industry totalling $7M. Prior to joining NICM Health Research Institute, Professor Chang served a number of academic leadership roles within Western Sydney University including Research Director of School of Science and Health, and Associate Head of School of Biomedical and Health Science. He initially trained in medicine and received postgraduate training in pharmacology.
    [Show full text]
  • Time to Define 'The Cornerstone of Public Order Legislation': the Elements of Offensive Conduct and Language Under The
    534 UNSW Law Journal Volume 36(2) TIME TO DEFINE ‘THE CORNERSTONE OF PUBLIC ORDER LEGISLATION’: THE ELEMENTS OF OFFENSIVE CONDUCT AND LANGUAGE UNDER THE SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1988 (NSW) * JULIA QUILTER ** AND LUKE MCNAMARA *** I INTRODUCTION This article addresses a contradiction that has long been at the heart of the criminal law concerned with ‘public order’. Although crimes such as offensive conduct and offensive language are amongst the most frequently prosecuted offences in Australia, their legal nature is poorly understood and rarely the subject of judicial scrutiny or academic explanation. In the context of ongoing controversy over whether such offences have a legitimate place on the statute books, we confront this oversight. This article draws on the High Court of Australia’s decision in He Kaw Teh v The Queen 1 to lay out a methodology for construing the elements of a statutory offence, and then employs this approach to produce a recommended interpretation of the elements of sections 4 and 4A of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW). * This article has its origins in our work as criminal law teachers, and in our respective lead contributions to the public order chapters of criminal law textbooks: Donna Spears, Julia Quilter and Clive Harfield, Criminal Law for Common Law States (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2011) ch 8; David Brown et al, Criminal Laws: Materials and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process of New South Wales (Federation Press, 5 th ed, 2011) ch 8. We would like to thank our teaching colleagues, students and co- authors for the many stimulating conversations we have had over the years on the topic of public order offences generally, and offensive conduct/language laws in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Notices (NGT 09/20 P.12)
    [email protected] Letters Thin blue line NGT I want to thank David welcomes letters Heilpern for his column and other contributions received by email or post Notices (NGT 09/20 p.12). David’s language is insightful and prior to deadline. Letters Position vacant delightful. I’m very much longer than 300 words may Cawongla Playhouse is seeking a Cert III qualified looking forward to your be edited for length, and educator for a casual short term position 3 days a week in promised future columns. articles for accuracy. Please term 4. We are also seeking Cert III staff to join our relief However, the metaphor include your full name, list. You must have current working with children check, invoked by the phrase address and phone number first aid and Cert III qualifications. Please email your CV for verification purposes. “democracy shudders” fails to: [email protected] to truly capture the utter Opinions expressed remain despair, visceral anger, and those of the author, and Room to let permanent dark cynicism are not necessarily those of Vacancy available in large 4-bedroom home in bushland which many of us carry Nimbin Good Times. setting just a 12-minute walk to the Nimbin Post Office. around inside our bodies A third interesting and happy person is wanted, so there every minute of every day of media now openly describe www.hollyenglish.com will be a spare room. Huge verandah and large garden our ‘democratic’ lives. “Police accountability in area, some of it planted. Our possible house-mate would I agree with you that the NSW” as “pathetic and for the rail trail.
    [Show full text]
  • Canberra Law Review Volume 16 Issue 1
    CANBERRA LAW REVIEW Volume 16 Number 1 Canberra Law School University of Canberra 2019 Canberra Law Review (2019) 16(1) ii Canberra Law Review The Canberra Law Review is a peer-reviewed law journal published each year by the Canberra Law School at the University of Canberra. It brings together academics, other scholars, legal practitioners, and students within and outside the University. It provides a peer-reviewed open access venue for innovative, cross-disciplinary and creative scholarly articles and commentaries on law and justice. Submissions The editors of the Canberra Law Review seek submissions on aspects of law. We welcome articles relating to theory and practice, and traditional, innovative and cross-disciplinary approaches to law, justice, policy and society. Guidelines • Scholarly articles should be 5,000-14,000 words, case notes 1,500-3,000 words and book reviews 1,000-1,500 words (including references). • Submissions should conform to 4th edition of the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (AGLC4) and be 12 pt Times New Roman. • Scholarly articles should be accompanied by an abstract of no more than 250 words. • Submissions should not have been previously published in another journal. Submissions should be emailed as MS Office .docx or .doc documents to [email protected]. Peer-Review Scholarly articles are blind peer-reviewed by two reviewers. Open Access Consistent with the Canberra Law School’s emphasis on inclusiveness, the Review is open access: an electronic version is available on the University of Canberra website
    [Show full text]