DOCSLIB.ORG

Applicant's Closing Submissions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Applicant's Closing Submissions NOTICE OF FILING This document was lodged electronically in the FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA (FCA) on 11/04/2016 6:23:39 PM AEST and has been accepted for filing under the Court’s Rules. Details of filing follow and important additional information about these are set out below. Details of Filing Document Lodged: Submissions File Number: QUD535/2013 File Title: Lex Wotton & Ors v State of Queensland & Anor Registry: QUEENSLAND REGISTRY - FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Dated: 14/04/2016 7:54:58 AM AEST Registrar Important Information As required by the Court’s Rules, this Notice has been inserted as the first page of the document which has been accepted for electronic filing. It is now taken to be part of that document for the purposes of the proceeding in the Court and contains important information for all parties to that proceeding. It must be included in the document served on each of those parties. The date and time of lodgment also shown above are the date and time that the document was received by the Court. Under the Court’s Rules the date of filing of the document is the day it was lodged (if that is a business day for the Registry which accepts it and the document was received by 4.30 pm local time at that Registry) or otherwise the next working day for that Registry. Federal Court of Australia No. QUD 535 of 2013 District Registry: Queensland Division: General Division Lex Wotton and Others Applicants State of Queensland and Another Respondents APPLICANTS’ CLOSING SUBMISSIONS Filed on behalf of the Applicants Prepared by Daniel Meyerowitz-Katz, Levitt Robinson Solicitors T (02) 9286 3133; E [email protected] Level 6, 162 Goulburn Street, Sydney (East) NSW 2010 CONTENTS A. OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................ 10 B. REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................... 12 C. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXTUAL MATTERS .......................................................... 14 C.1. SECTION 9(1) OF THE RDA ..................................................................................................................... 14 C.1.1 ELEMENTS OF SECTION 9(1) .................................................................................................................... 15 C.1.2 PROVING THE ELEMENTS OF SECTION 9(1) ............................................................................................. 16 C.1.3 BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF AND INFERENCES ........................................................................ 17 C.1.4 REQUIREMENT OF COMPARATOR ........................................................................................................... 21 C.1.5 IDENTIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHT OR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM ....................................................... 21 (a) Nature of human rights and fundamental freedoms ........................................................................... 22 (b) Sources of rights........................................................................................................................................ 23 C.1.6 SHARED “RACE, COLOUR, DESCENT OR NATIONAL OR ETHNIC ORIGIN” .............................................. 25 C.1.7 “ACT” DONE BY A “PERSON” .................................................................................................................. 26 C.1.8 MEANING OF ‘DISTINCTION, EXCLUSION, RESTRICTION OR PREFERENCE’ ............................................ 27 C.1.9 MEANING OF THE PHRASE “BASED ON” ................................................................................................. 28 C.1.10 EQUAL FOOTING ................................................................................................................................... 30 C.2. ABORIGINAL DEATHS IN CUSTODY AND THE COMMUNITY.................................................................. 31 C.2.1 COMMUNITY NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS .............................................................................................. 31 C.2.2 ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT ................................................................................................................. 33 (a) Police knowledge of Royal Commission report ................................................................................... 33 (b) Community knowledge of Royal Commission report ........................................................................ 34 C.2.3 CULTURAL NEEDS PECULIAR TO THE COMMUNITY ................................................................................ 36 2 C.3. POLICE DUTIES IN THE CONDUCT OF AN INVESTIGATION .................................................................... 37 C.3.1 DUTIES AT COMMON LAW ...................................................................................................................... 37 C.3.2 DUTIES UNDER THE OPM ....................................................................................................................... 38 C.3.3 IMPARTIALITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE ................................................................................................... 41 D. QPS FAILURES OF 19 TO 24 NOVEMBER 2004 ............................................................... 43 D.1. COMPROMISE OF INTEGRITY OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 43 D.1.1 DRIVE FROM THE AIRPORT WITH SS HURLEY ........................................................................................ 43 (a) Other transport options ........................................................................................................................... 44 (b) Discussions during the drive .................................................................................................................. 44 (c) Knowledge that SS Hurley was the arresting officer ........................................................................... 45 (d) Compromise of integrity of investigation ............................................................................................. 48 D.1.2 DINNER WITH SS HURLEY ...................................................................................................................... 49 D.1.3 FAILURE TO TREAT SS HURLEY AS A SUSPECT ....................................................................................... 52 (a) First Bramwell interview ......................................................................................................................... 54 (b) Second Bramwell interview .................................................................................................................... 56 (c) Trip to Dee Street ...................................................................................................................................... 57 D.1.4 SS HURLEY PERFORMING DUTIES AT THE SCENE ................................................................................... 59 D.1.5 APPOINTMENT OF DS ROBINSON TO INVESTIGATION TEAM ................................................................. 62 D.1.6 APPOINTMENT OF DSS KITCHING TO INVESTIGATION TEAM ............................................................... 64 D.1.7 FAILURE TO PRESERVE INDEPENDENT VERSIONS OF EVENTS ................................................................. 65 D.1.8 FAILURE TO TAKE STATEMENTS FROM POLICE WITNESSES ..................................................................... 68 D.1.9 FAILURE TO INTERVIEW CONST STEADMAN .......................................................................................... 69 D.1.10 FAILURE OF SUPERVISION BY INSP WILLIAMS ...................................................................................... 70 D.1.11 TREATMENT OF PLO BENGAROO ......................................................................................................... 72 D.2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO ABORIGINAL WITNESSES .............................................................. 74 3 (a) Support persons ........................................................................................................................................ 75 (b) Cultural and sociological issues ............................................................................................................. 76 D.3. FORM 1 AND AUTOPSY ............................................................................................................................ 77 D.3.1 DELAY IN SENDING FORM 1.................................................................................................................... 78 D.3.2 DISCREPANCIES IN FORM 1 ..................................................................................................................... 79 D.3.3 FAILURE TO INCLUDE ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS ...................................................................................... 80 D.3.4 FAILURE TO ADVISE PATHOLOGIST OF ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS ............................................................ 81 D.3.5 BREACHES OF DUTIES .............................................................................................................................. 82 D.4. FAILURE TO MEET THE CULTURAL NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY ........................ 83 D.4.1 FAILURE OF CAU.................................................................................................................................... 84 D.4.2 FAILURE OF CCLO ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Sydney Law Review
    volume 41 number 1 march 2019 the sydney law review julius stone address 1 Inside and Outside Global Law – Hans Lindahl articles Litigants and Legal Representatives: A Study of Special Leave Applications in the High Court of Australia – Pam Stewart and Anita Stuhmcke 35 The Principle of Legality: Protecting Statutory Rights from Statutory Infringement? – Bruce Chen 73 An Empirical Investigation of 20 Years of Trade Mark Infringement Litigation in Australian Courts – Vicki T Huang 105 before the high court Comcare v Banerji: Public Servants and Political Communication – Kieran Pender 131 book review Markus D Dubber, The Dual Penal State: The Crisis of Criminal Law in Comparative-Historical Perspective – James Monaghan 149 EDITORIAL BOARD Elisa Arcioni (Editor) Celeste Black (Editor) Fady Aoun Tanya Mitchell Ben Chen Jacqui Mowbray Emily Hammond Joellen Riley Sheelagh McCracken Yane Svetiev STUDENT EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Callum Christodoulou Byron Howard Serena May Elisabeth Enright Laura Ismay Ajay Sivanathan George Farrugia Elsher Keir Vivienne Zhang Claudia Harper Charlotte Lewis Before the High Court Editor: Emily Hammond Publishing Manager: Cate Stewart Correspondence should be addressed to: Sydney Law Review Law Publishing Unit Sydney Law School Building F10, Eastern Avenue UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA Email: [email protected] Website and submissions: <https://sydney.edu.au/law/our-research/ publications/sydney-law-review.html> For subscriptions outside North America: <http://sydney.edu.au/sup/> For subscriptions in North America, contact Gaunt: [email protected] The Sydney Law Review is a refereed journal. © 2019 Sydney Law Review and authors. ISSN 0082–0512 (PRINT) ISSN 1444–9528 (ONLINE) Julius Stone Address Inside and Outside Global Law Hans Lindahl† Abstract Protracted and bitter resistance by alter-globalisation and anti-globalisation movements around the world shows that the globalisation of law transpires as the globalisation of inclusion and exclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 34 Number 2 2013
    Adelaide Law Review 2013 Adelaide Law Review 2013 Adelaide Law Review 2013 TABLETABLETABLE OF OFOF CONTENTS CONTENTSCONTENTS THETHETHE 2011 2012 20112011 JOHN JOHNJOHN BRAY BRAYBRAYBRAY ORATION ORATIONORATION ORATION JohnDavidDavidDavid Doyle Irvine IrvineIrvine ChoosingFrFrFreeeeeedomdomdom andOur andand Security: JudgesSecurity:Security: Maintaining MaintainingMaintaining The TheThe Balance BalanceBalance 223295295295 ARTICLES ARTICLESARTICLESARTICLES THETHETHE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF OFOF ADELAIDE ADELAIDEADELAIDE M Stuart Madden Efficiency Themes in Tort Law from Antiquity 231 JamesJamesJames Allan AllanAllan and andand TimeTimeTime and andand Chance ChanceChance and andand the thethe Prevailing PrevailingPrevailing Orthodoxy OrthodoxyOrthodoxy in inin ADELAIDEADELAIDEADELAIDE LAW LAWLAW REVIEW REVIEWREVIEW ChrisAnthonyAnthonyAnthony Finn Senanayake SenanayakeSenanayake ExtrajudicialLegalLegalLegal Academia AcademiaAcademia Speech Happeneth HappenethHappeneth and the to to toPrejudgment Them ThemThem All AllAll — —— A Rule: AA Study StudyStudy Aof ofReplof the thethe yTop Top Topto LawBartie LawLaw Journals JournalsJournals and Gava of ofof Australia Australia Australia and andand New NewNew Ze ZeZealandalandaland 267307307307 ASSOCIATIONASSOCIATIONASSOCIATION Jenny Buchan Franchising: A Honey Pot in a Bear Trap 283 LaurentiaLaurentiaLaurentia Mc McMcKessarKessarKessar ThreeThreeThree Constitutional ConstitutionalConstitutional Themes ThemesThemes in inin the thethe High HighHigh Court CourtCourt Mirk o Bagaric Aof ofRationalof
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Court of Australia Annual Report 2016–2017
    FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ANNUAL REPORT 2016–2017 Iritjinga (Eagle Hawk) belonging to the Aranda “Eventually I came across a word that, instantly, excited my attention. It was the explanation of the meaning of and Luritja Peoples of Hermannsburg (Ntaria) the word that left me with a sense of humility and how it in the Central Desert of Northern Territory was relevant to the work we do. Here is the explanation and the word is easily identified. I hope you, like me, find In 2017, when the Court was developing the it thought provoking.” – Warwick Soden requirements for its new Digital Court Program (to replace the old case management system called ‘By watching the movement of the stars the Aborigines Casetrack) it was decided that a name for the new of central Australia discerned for themselves that system was needed. certain stars neither rise nor set, i.e. they are circumpolar. Thus, they knew that the Iritjinga (Eagle) Staff were encouraged to come up with names, and constellation which was made up of some of the stars in researching one suggestion about using the name of the Southern Cross (Gamma and Delta Crucis) of a particular colour, the CEO and Principal Registrar and the Pointers (Gamma and Delta Centauri) was came across some academic work about the theory circumpolar. of colours and noticed a reference to Indigenous connections. Those ‘connections’ made him think It is interesting to note that in Aboriginal astronomy it of the idea to find an Aboriginal word that would be is not necessarily the case that only the brightest most a suitable name for the new system.
    [Show full text]
  • Warriors for Peace. the Political Situation of the Aboriginal People As Viewed from Palm Island Barbara Glowczewski, Lex Wotton
    Warriors for peace. The political situation of the Aboriginal people as viewed from Palm Island Barbara Glowczewski, Lex Wotton To cite this version: Barbara Glowczewski, Lex Wotton. Warriors for peace. The political situation of the Aboriginal people as viewed from Palm Island. Indigène Editions, pp.300, 2008. halshs-00637654 HAL Id: halshs-00637654 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00637654 Submitted on 2 Nov 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. WARRIORS FOR PEACE The Political Condition of the Aboriginal People as Viewed from Palm Island BY BARBARA GLOWCZEWSKI AND LEX WOTTON ©Indigène éditions, January 2008 Text copyright © Barbara Glowczewski and Lex Wotton ©English translation Barbara Glowczewski 1 FOREWORD Weekend visit in jail Barbed wire encircles the shiny buildings. Some ten families sit on rows of plastic chairs on the brand new concrete veranda, waiting. The officer, holstering a revolver, walks past the young kids, who hardly pay him any attention, and stops in front of some men and women. He hands them little strips of paper to rub against the inside of their forearm for traces of drugs. The next day, drug detection dogs on the leash sniff us.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Delay in Class Actions
    Class Actions Research Paper #4: 9 October 2020 The problem of delay in class actions Peter Cashman1 & Amelia Simpson2 In this paper we examine delays in the resolution of class actions in the Federal Court and the New South Wales, Victorian and Queensland Supreme Courts. We have sought to obtain and analyse the available empirical data on 542 cases.3 The data collected included information on: • the date(s) on which the cause(s) of action arose or time periods relevant to the cause of action • the date on which each class action was filed • the date on which the proceeding was finalised • the date of judgment in cases where liability was judicially determined • the date on which any settlement agreement was approved (or rejected) by the court. Using this data, we have computed: • the time period (in days) from the date of commencement of the proceeding to the date on which the matter was ‘finalised’ • the time period (in days) from the date of filing to the date of settlement approval or judgment • for cases that are as yet not finalised: the period from when the case was commenced until 30 September 2020. We then calculated, for cases commenced in each calendar year in the period 1992 to 2020, the average and median times from commencement to ‘finalisation’. The results and our analyses are set out in this Research Paper. We have included as Appendix A a schedule of the cases considered. We have also included reference below to: • other available quantitative data on delays in class actions in Australia • the qualitative information on the problem and causes of delay in class action litigation based on interviews which we conducted with experienced class action practitioners, which we previously set out in detail in Research Paper #34 and • suggested guidelines, proposed by others, for the purpose of determining unreasonable or undesirable delay in civil proceedings generally.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrected Outline of Submissions
    · <, IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA SYDNEY Ml;;bBObJRNI;; REGISTRY N° MS314 OF 2010 BETWEEN LEX PATRICK WOTTON Plaintiff 10 AND STATE OF QUEENSLAND First Defendant CENTRAL AND NORTHERN QUEENSLAND REGIONAL PAROLE BOARD Second Defendant 20 PLAINTIFF'S CORRECTED OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS HIGH COU!f(l' OF A\\fSliMLlIA FIL E n 1'" COURT 2011 " 2 AU6 ";;-. _tHaREG1STRY CANBERRA Dated of document: &29 July 2011 Filed on behalf of: The Plaintiff Prepared by: Levitt Robinson Solicitors, Level 6, 162 Goulburn Street Sydney (East) NSW 2010 Telephone +61292863133 Facsimile +612 9283 0005 I. CERTIFICATION 1. These submissions are suitable for publication on the interne!. 11. CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES 2. The special case raises the following questions: 2.1. Is s 132(1 )(a) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) (CSA) invalid because it impermissibly burdens the freedom of communication about government and political matters contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution? 2.2. Are conditions (t), (u) and (v) of the Plaintiffs Parole Order invalid 10 because they impermissibly burden the freedom of communication about government and political matters contrary to the Commonwealth Constitution? 2.3. Is s 200(2) of the CSA invalid to the extent it authorises the imposition of conditions (t), (u) and (v) of the Plaintiffs Parole Order? Ill. SECTION 78B NOTICES 3. Notices under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) were filed and served on 22 December 2010 [SCB 14-19]. The Plaintiff does not consider that any further notices are necessary. IV. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 20 4. The material facts are set out in the special case [SCB 44-55].
    [Show full text]
  • Blinded by the White: a Comparative Analysis of Jury Challenges on Racial Grounds
    www.crimejusticejournal.com IJCJ&SD 2016 6(3): 25‐46 ISSN 2202–8005 Blinded by the White: A Comparative Analysis of Jury Challenges on Racial Grounds Thalia Anthony and Craig Longman1 University of Technology Sydney, Australia Abstract Indigenous peoples in Australia, the United States and Canada are significantly overrepresented as defendants in criminal trials and yet vastly underrepresented on juries in criminal trials. This means that all‐white juries mostly determine the guilt of Indigenous defendants or white defendants responsible for harming Indigenous victims. In this article, we explore cases in which Indigenous defendants have perceived that an all‐white jury’s prejudice against Indigenous people would prevent them receiving a fair trial. It focuses on Indigenous defendants (often facing charges in relation to protesting against white racism) challenging the array of all‐white juries. Across these cases, Australian courts rely on formal notions of fairness in jury selection to dismiss the Indigenous defendant’s perception of bias and foreclose an inquiry into the potential prejudices of white jurors. We compare the Australian judicial ‘colour‐blindness’ towards all‐white juries with that of the United States and Canada. We argue that the tendency for courts in the United States and Canada to question jurors on their biases provides useful lessons for Australian judiciaries, including in relation to the impending trials of Indigenous defendants in Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, accused of committing crimes in response to white racist violence. Nonetheless, across all jurisdictions where there is a challenge to the array based on racial composition, courts consistently uphold all‐white juries. We suggest that the judicial view of the racial neutrality of white jury selection misapprehends the substantive biases in jury selection and the injustice perceived by defendants in having a white jury adjudicate an alleged crime that is committed in circumstances involving protest against white prejudice.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 33 Number 1 2012
    S U N B C E RUCE LUM THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION EDITORIAL BOARD Professor J R Crawford Emeritus Professor R Graycar Whewell Professor of Dunhill Madden Butler Professor International Law Faculty of Law University of Cambridge University of Sydney United Kingdom New South Wales Professor W R Cornish Professor J V Orth Herschel Smith Professor of William Rand Kenan Jr Intellectual Property Law Professor of Law University of Cambridge UNC School of Law United Kingdom The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill United State of America Emeritus Professor M J Detmold Emeritus Professor I Shearer Adelaide Law School Faculty of Law The University of Adelaide University of Sydney South Australia New South Wales The Hon J J Doyle Former Chief Justice Supreme Court of South Australia ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW Editors Paul Babie John Gava John Williams Book Review Editor Daniel McLoughlin Assistant Editor Michael Deves Student Editors Warwick Ambrose Lisa Muffatti Campbell Davis Esther Pearson Emily Haar Mario Reshan Shavin Silva Emma Harman Richard Sletvold Cassandra Hodzic Molly Snaith Zoe Irwin Monique Webber Publications Officer Panita Hirunboot Volume 33 Number 1 2012 The Adelaide Law Review is a refereed journal that is published twice a year by the Adelaide Law Review Association of the Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide. A guide for the submission of manuscripts is set out at the back of this issue. Articles and other contributions for possible publication are welcomed. Copies of the journal may be purchased or subscribed for from: Administrative Officer For North America: Adelaide Law Review Association William S Hein & Co Adelaide Law School 1285 Main Street The University of Adelaide Buffalo NY 14209 South Australia 5005 USA AUSTRALIA e-mail: <[email protected]> <http://www.law.adelaide.edu.au/review> This volume may be cited as: (2012) 33 Adelaide Law Review The articles in this volume are published in 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Constitutional
    Table of Contents Fundamentals of Australian Constitutional Law ................................................................................................... 14 The Constitution ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Main types of Constitutional Case ................................................................................................................. 14 Fundamentals of Constitutional Law ................................................................................................................. 16 Overview of Principles .................................................................................................................................. 16 Precedent and Overruling .................................................................................................................................. 16 Australian Agricultural Co v Federated Engine-Drivers & Firemen’s Association (‘Engine-Driver’s Case’) (1913) 17 CLR 261 ........................................................................................................................................ 17 John v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1989) 166 CLR 417 ................................................................. 17 Wurridjal v Commonwealth (2009) 237 CLR 309. ....................................................................................... 18 Stevens v Head (1993) 176 CLR 433 ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Manifestations of Moral Panics in the Sentencing of Palm Islander Lex Wottont
    Manifestations of Moral Panics in the Sentencing of Palm Islander Lex Wottont Abstract This Comment considers the sentencing of Palm Islander man, Lex Patrick Wotton, for his involvement in the protest following the death in custody of Mulrunji. It examines the protest as a response to the police role in the death and the police mishandling of the consequent investigation. The Comment critiques the media trial that paralleled Wotton's court trial. The mainstream media, along with the Queensland Government and police union, produced a moral panic over the Palm Island protest that overshadowed the death in custody. This Comment argues that the court that sentenced Wotton appropriated the moral panic over the offence to remove the death in custody as a sentencing factor. Background to the Sentencing: Mulrunji' s Death in Custody The death of Mulrunji was about the 230th Indigenous death in custody since the Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) handed down its report in 1991 (ABS 2007:358). Not only is this figure alarming, but also were the circumstances surrounding Mulrunji's death. The lead-up and review of the death were in direct contradistinction to RCIADJC's (1991) recommendations: to refrain from arresting Indigenous people for offensive language (Recommendation 86a)~ that arrest should be the sanction of 'last resort' (Recommendation 87), and that a coronial inquiry and investigation into a death in custody should be conducted independently from the responsible officers (Recommendations 27, 33). Regarding the first point, Commissioner Wooten (1991) commented in the RCJADIC Report 'it is surely time that police learnt to ignore ..
    [Show full text]
  • THE ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW Law.Adelaide.Edu.Au Adelaide Law Review ADVISORY BOARD
    Volume 41, Number 1 THE ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW law.adelaide.edu.au Adelaide Law Review ADVISORY BOARD The Honourable Professor Catherine Branson AC QC Chancellor, The University of Adelaide; Former President, Australian Human Rights Commission; Former Justice, Federal Court of Australia Emeritus Professor William R Cornish CMG QC Emeritus Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property Law, University of Cambridge His Excellency Judge James R Crawford AC SC International Court of Justice The Honourable Professor John J Doyle AC QC Former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of South Australia Professor John V Orth William Rand Kenan Jr Professor of Law, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Professor Emerita Rosemary J Owens AO Former Dean, Adelaide Law School The Honourable Justice Melissa Perry Federal Court of Australia The Honourable Margaret White AO Former Justice, Supreme Court of Queensland Professor John M Williams Dame Roma Mitchell Chair of Law and Former Dean, Adelaide Law School ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW Editors Associate Professor Matthew Stubbs and Dr Stacey Henderson Book Review and Comment Editor Dr Stacey Henderson Associate Editors Mitchell Brunker and Henry Materne-Smith Student Editors Simone Basso Samuel Beer Lachlan Blake Charlotte Butchart Hayley Crumb Christina Devetzidis Lauren Fletcher Georgina Irving Laura Kelly Brandon Le Alice Osborne Mitchell Romanowski Madison Terrell Flyn Wells Georgina Wigney Publications Officer Panita Hirunboot Volume 41 Issue 1 2020 The Adelaide Law Review is a double-blind peer reviewed journal that is published twice a year by the Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide. A guide for the submission of manuscripts is set out at the back of this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • 04 Edgely FINAL 35
    Criminals and (Second-Class) Citizenship: Twenty-First Century Attainder? Author Edgely, Michelle Published 2010 Journal Title Griffith Law Review Copyright Statement © 2010 Griffith Law School. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/36629 Link to published version https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10383441.2010.10854683 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au CRIMINALS AND (SECOND-CLASS) CITIZENSHIP Twenty-First Century Attainder? Michelle Edgely* This article considers whether criminal offenders in Australia are second-class citizens. Using TH Marshallʼs seminal conception of citizenship, the article discusses various ways in which offendersʼ civil, political and social rights are delimited in Australia. While acknowledging that the liberty of prisoners is curtailed – which is the defining and necessarily punitive feature of imprisonment – the article argues that the legal system goes further, imposing a range of collateral consequences on offenders that seriously infringe other fundamental rights. Using penological and liberal theories, consideration is given to the question of whether the impairment of offendersʼ fundamental citizenship rights can be justified. It is argued that the impairment of rights discussed is not theoretically justifiable, and is arguably best explained as an anachronistic remnant of attainder. Conviction of felony renders a man for ever infamous in England, – infamous in law, – and attaches to him for life certain disabilities, which incapacitate him for exercising some of the rights and duties of citizenship. It is not enough that the felon pay the immediate penalty which the law awards to his crime.
    [Show full text]