DOCSLIB.ORG

Standard of Proof, Unpredictable Behaviour

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Standard of Proof, Unpredictable Behaviour View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Deakin University: openjournals@Deakin STANDARD OF PROOF , UNPREDICTABLE BEHAVIOUR AND THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ’S VERDICT ON PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAWS ANTHONY GRAY * [Preventive detention laws authorize courts to order the continued detention in prison of a person who has served their allocated term of imprisonment, but who are thought to be at risk of re-offending if released. They raise fun- damental issues about the separation of powers, the purpose of incarcera- tion, and the standard of proof which is/should be required to authorize detention. They assume that it is possible to predict, with a satisfactory rate of success, whether or not a past offender would if released commit further offences. Recently, a majority of the High Court of Australia validated such legislation. The author in this article explains his reasons for disagreeing with the verdict of the Court in this matter. ] I INTRODUCTION A recent attempt by a State Parliament to introduce preventive detention, allowing for the continued detention of an offender after their original term of sentence has expired, raises fundamental constitutional law and criminal procedure issues. Chief among them are whether the doctrine of separation of powers permits a State Court to be part of such a process, if so what the relevant standard of proof should be, and how it compares with the traditional criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, and current thinking on the predictability of future behaviour. This article addresses * Acting Head of Department and Lecturer in Law, Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queen- sland. 178 DEAKIN LAW REVIEW VOLUME 10 NO 1 each of these issues, and submits that the recent majority High Court decision validating such preventive detention laws is, with respect, flawed on many counts. In October 2004 the High Court of Australia, by a verdict of 6-1, upheld the validity of Queensland preventive detention legislation. 1 The 2003 law allows the Queen- sland Attorney-General to apply to the Supreme Court for an order that a person who has been convicted of a serious sexual offence be detained in prison for a further indefinite period after the end of the sentence which they were previously given. 2 In other words, further incarceration may be authorized not because of something the prisoner has done, but based on an assumption of what they may do if released. For many, this was an unexpected result. In an earlier article in the Deakin Law Review ,3 published prior to the High Court’s ruling, the author expressed his strong belief that the legislation should, consistent with the High Court’s own ruling in the Kable decision in 1995, 4 be struck down on constitutional grounds. The legislation may also be said to run counter to funda- mental legal principles, such as the rule of law and the common law right to liberty. Some see the legislation as running counter to the fundamental notion of presump- tion of innocence. It has been suggested that, as a result of the High Court’s deci- sion in this case, other State Parliaments are planning preventive detention regimes. The issue of the validity of such schemes, and how far a State Parliament (or possi- bly the Federal Parliament) may constitutionally be able to proceed along this path, is likely to remain a contentious issue in the foreseeable future. This article is split into several parts. Part II outlines the previous law in Australia on preventive detention regimes, based on the principle of separation of powers, and compares it with the High Court’s view in the Fardon case. An aspect of the law requires that the Queensland Government prove that the offender be likely to re-offend ‘at a high degree of probability’. The decision in Fardon implies that this is an acceptable standard of proof as a basis for further incarceration. Part III of the article outlines current models on the predictability of future behaviour. Part IV elaborates on the concept of reasonable doubt, and comparisons are made with the Fardon standard and the criminal standard of proof. Part V draws upon other arguments to suggest that such regimes are problematic and ill-conceived, including the suggestion that Fardon -type laws are in fact criminal in nature rather than civil. Other ways of dealing with the problem that those kinds of laws purport to address will be briefly considered. 1 Fardon v. Attorney-General (Queensland), (2004) 210 ALR 50 (High Court of Australia, 2004) (Far- don). 2 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003, s 13. 3 Detaining Future Dangerous Offenders: Dangerous Legislation, 9 DEAKIN L. REV . 243 (2004). 4 Kable v. DPP, (1996) 189 CLR 51 (High Court of Australia, 1996) (Kable). 2005 Preventive Detention Laws 179 II KABLE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS A Kable A similar law to the one challenged in Fardon was passed by the New South Wales in 1994. Specific details of that legislation challenged in the Kable case appear in the earlier Deakin Law Review article. Suffice to say for present purposes that the challenged law allowed the State Attorney-General to apply to that State’s Supreme Court for an order that (in the end, a particular named offender) be detained indefi- nitely, if the court was satisfied that the person was more likely than not to commit a violent offence if released. The Act was couched in terms of community protec- tion. 5 Only the civil standard of proof was required in terms of making out a case under the legislation, and the court was not bound by traditional rules of evidence in assessing the application. A majority of the High Court in that case struck down the legislation as being offensive to the Commonwealth Constitution. The judges accepted that there was no separation of powers in individual State Constitutions, 6 but a majority found that as State Courts exercised federal jurisdiction, they were part of the federal court structure, and as such the formal separation of powers that clearly did exist in the Commonwealth Constitution was drawn down to State courts in the federal hierar- chy, including State Supreme Courts. It is necessary to elaborate on the reasoning of the majority in that case in order to assess the judgments in the recent Fardon decision. 7 1 Toohey J His Honour noted that the preventive detention regime in the Act differed from existing recognized categories of non-punitive (or civil) detention, including mental illness, infectious disease, the traditional power to punish for contempt, or military discipline tribunals. 8 He noted that preventive detention was an end in itself. It was not an incident of the exclusively judicial function of adjudging and punishing criminal guilt. He found the Act infringed the Grollo principle, 9 in that it asked a judicial body to undertake non-judicial functions of such a nature that public confi- 5 It was entitled the Community Protection Act 1994, and s3 of the legislation stated its object was to protect the community, and that in interpreting the legislation, the need to protect the community was to be given paramount consideration. 6 An orthodox view – see for example Clyne v. East, (1967) 68 SR (NSW) 385, Builders’ Labourers’ Federation of New South Wales v. Minister for Industrial Relations, (1986) 7 NSWLR 372. 7 See also Peter Johnston & Rohan Hardcastle, State Courts: The Limits of Kable, 20 SYDNEY L. REV . 216 (1998) 8 Kable v. DPP, (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51, 98 (High Court of Australia, 1996); considered in Chu Kheng Lim v. Minister for Immigration, (1992) 176 CLR 1(High Court of Australia, 1992). 9 Grollo v. Palmer, (1995) 184 CLR 348, 365 (High Court of Australia, 1995). 180 DEAKIN LAW REVIEW VOLUME 10 NO 1 dence in the integrity of the judiciary as an institution would be diminished. He said that the law infringed the principle of separation of powers because It requires the Supreme Court to participate in the making of a preven- tive detention order where no breach of the criminal law is alleged and where there has been no determination of guilt. On that ground I would hold the Act invalid. 10 2 Gaudron J Gaudron J agreed with the proposition that a State Parliament could not confer on its Supreme Court powers which were repugnant to or incompatible with their exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. 11 She noted that the proceedings contemplated by the Act were not proceedings ordinarily known to the law. Acknowledging the Act attempted to dress them up as legal proceedings by referring to the rules of evidence, they did not partake of the nature of legal proceedings. This was because they did not involve the resolution of a dispute between contesting parties as to their respective legal rights and obligations … The applicant is not to be put on trial for any offence against the criminal law. Instead, the proceedings are directed to the making of a guess - perhaps an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless – whether, on the balance of probabilities, the appellant will commit an offence of ‘serious violence’ … The power ... requires the making of an order .. depriving an individual of his liberty, not because he has breached any law, but because an opinion is formed, on the basis of material which does not necessarily constitute evidence admissible in legal proceed- ings, that he is more likely than not to … commit a serious acts of violence. That is the antithesis of the judicial process, one of the central purposes of which … is to protect the individual from arbitrary punishment and the arbi- trary abrogation of rights by ensuring that punishment is not inflicted and rights are not interfered with other than in consequence of the fair and impar- tial application of the law to facts which have been properly ascertained.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The True Nature of a Member's Interest in A
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Monash University Research Repository THE LATE JUSTICE GRAHAM HILL By the Honourable Justice Michael Kirby∗ Graham Hill and Michael Kirby are seated in the front row on the left and right respectively (Fort Street Boys’ High School, Sydney 1954) Justice Graham Hill died in Sydney on 24 August 2005. I knew him longer than virtually any other living person. I pay my tribute to his life and work. Graham Hill and I were products of the public education system of New South Wales. Specifically, we were students in the selective schools into which are admitted children of parents of modest means ∗ Justice of the High Court of Australia. (2005) 8(2) 206 M KIRBY who prove talented in their primary school studies and who, in our day, did well in intelligence tests administered to single out “gifted” pupils. I first met Graham Hill on the day, in late January 1949, when we both arrived at the Opportunity “C” class at Summer Hill, a western suburb of Sydney. We were entering fifth class in the primary school. He was already ten years old, having been born on 1 November 1938. My tenth birthday lay ahead, in March of that year. He had come from the public school in Haberfield, a nearby suburb; I from North Strathfield Public School, five miles away. At the time, he was a chubby child. Rather cruelly, some of the students in our class (who might have been intelligent but were not always insightful) called him “Fatty”.
    [Show full text]
  • Passages in the Law
    Passages in the Law Brian Tamberlin, QC Deputy President Administrative Appeals Tribunal Talk at the office of Carroll and O’Dea 12 February 2013 1 Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. One bonus of being asked to speak today was the opportunity to get better acquainted with the history of the firm through the prism of your centenary publication “The Vision Splendid”. It sets out the history and culture of the firm over most of the last one hundred and fifteen years of it’s existence. Many of the anecdotes resonate with my fond recollections of the personalities referred to such as Clive Evatt, Frank McAlary, Barry Mahoney, Ray Loveday and Paul Flannery. Over the past fifty years inevitably I have come across many members of the firm. My most continuous acquaintance has been with Michael O’Dea whom I first met in 1965 and who in 1968 succeeded me as an alderman of North Sydney Council of which he later became Lord Mayor. I admire the culture and vision of the firm and its engagement with the community especially through its extensive pro-bono program. Not the least of its achievements is keeping its name and identity, as well is its strongly personal culture in the present environment of law firm mergers, which, by change of name and often of culture, tend to become anonymous commercial entities abandoning a valuable part of their identity and esteem. The name Carroll and O’Dea has a personal ring rather than those global operations with names such as Linklaters, Ashurst or Quality Solicitors.
    [Show full text]
  • 2641 Macquarie University Law School 40
    2641 MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 40TH ANNIVERSARY SYDNEY, 19 OCTOBER 2012 A.R. BLACKSHIELD AND REALISM IN AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW The Hon. Michael Kirby AC, CMG MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 40TH ANNIVERSARY SYDNEY, 19 OCTOBER 2012 A.R. BLACKSHIELD AND REALISM IN AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW* THE HON MICHAEL KIRBY AC CMG** IN THE BEGINNING As befits a pupil, I honour a teacher who helped to ready me for a life in the law. He helped me to see law, especially public and constitutional law, in its governmental and political context. He was one of the early professors of law at the Macquarie University Law School. But before that, in his first years of undergraduate teaching at the University of Sydney Law School, he taught a class that included Murray Gleeson, David Hodgson, Graham Hill, Jane Matthews, Brian Tamberlin, me and others. In Professor Blackshield’s hands were placed two future Justices of the High Court of Australia, judges of the New South Wales Court of Appeal and of the Federal Court and other Federal and State courts, two future professors of law, leading businessmen, politicians and legal practitioners.1 Great is the responsibility of the teachers who introduce untutored law students to the concepts of law that will dominate their lives, so important for their society. Great is the debt that we, the students owe to our teachers, including Tony Blackshield. * Inaugural Tony Blackshield Lecture, 2012. ** Justice of the High Court of Australia (1996-2009); President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal (1984-1996); Judge of the Federal Court of Australia (1983-84); Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission (1975-84).
    [Show full text]
  • Perfectly Safe, Five Times out of Six: the Briginshaw Principle and Its Paradoxes
    376 UNSW Law Journal Volume 42(2) PERFECTLY SAFE, FIVE TIMES OUT OF SIX: THE BRIGINSHAW PRINCIPLE AND ITS PARADOXES HARRY STRATTON* When a method of risk assessment would endorse playing Russian roulette, something has gone badly wrong with its logic. Yet the current understanding of Briginshaw v Briginshaw means courts cannot properly account for the risks presented in just this sort of situation. In this article, I explain the Briginshaw principle by comparison to intuitive and mathematical models of decision- making under conditions of uncertainty. I show that, while Briginshaw itself left the High Court of Australia deeply divided about where the so-called principle was enlivened and its consequences, subsequent judicial consideration has partly resolved this confusion. However, these subsequent authorities depart from our models, because courts wrongly assume serious allegations are inherently unlikely, insufficiently account for the consequences of ‘false negatives’, and have contradictory attitudes towards economic consequences. More fundamentally, while no theory of decision-making can totally avoid risk, I show that the accepted interpretation of Briginshaw as a fixed standard of proof means courts cannot properly account for improbable but grave consequences. Adopting a variable standard of proof would resolve some of these issues, but current authority is inconsistent with this approach. I INTRODUCTION Civil cases frequently involve serious allegations that have grave consequences but are difficult to prove.1 As in criminal cases, civil allegations of * BSc (Adv), LLB (Hons I, Medal), University of Sydney; BCL candidate, Magdalen College, Oxford. I would like to thank Professor David Hamer, Professor Peter Cashman, John Stratton SC, Beverly Parungao, Patrick Hall, Maria Mellos, Alyssa Glass, Timothy Smartt, Dr Ananya Chakravorty, and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Alj @ 80: Past, Present & Future*
    ALJ @ 80: PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE* The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG** PAST & PRESENT National journal of record: The ALJ is 80. The British Empire was at its zenith in 1927 when the first issue was published. The Empire packed its colonial judges off home at 65, doubtless fearing that the midday sun would addle older brains. To this day, judges in most parts of the Commonwealth of Nations must retire at 65, or even 62. In Australia, the Constitution was changed to ensure that federal judges do not serve beyond 70. By such standards, the ALJ is getting long in the tooth. Yet we all know people who are as sharp as a tack at 80 and much older. And as I get older I tell myself that it is all relative It falls to me to lead this celebration. And to reflect on the changing perspectives of the law and of its profession over the past 80 years. In the law, we participate in such jubilees partly for reasons of * Paper delivered to a conference to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the ALJ, Sydney, 16 March 2007. ** Acting Chief Justice of Australia. The author acknowledges the assistance of Mr Adam Sharpe, Legal Research Officer in the High Court Library, in collecting statistical and other materials used in this article. 2. nostalgia; partly to get our bearings for the present; and partly to grasp the gossamer-thin portents that suggest where we may be going. There is nothing quite like the ALJ in most other common law jurisdictions. England has the Law Quarterly Review and the Modern Law Review.
    [Show full text]
  • And the High Court of Australia ’S Verdict on Preventive Detention Laws
    STANDARD OF PROOF , UNPREDICTABLE BEHAVIOUR AND THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ’S VERDICT ON PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAWS ANTHONY GRAY * [Preventive detention laws authorize courts to order the continued detention in prison of a person who has served their allocated term of imprisonment, but who are thought to be at risk of re-offending if released. They raise fun- damental issues about the separation of powers, the purpose of incarcera- tion, and the standard of proof which is/should be required to authorize detention. They assume that it is possible to predict, with a satisfactory rate of success, whether or not a past offender would if released commit further offences. Recently, a majority of the High Court of Australia validated such legislation. The author in this article explains his reasons for disagreeing with the verdict of the Court in this matter. ] I INTRODUCTION A recent attempt by a State Parliament to introduce preventive detention, allowing for the continued detention of an offender after their original term of sentence has expired, raises fundamental constitutional law and criminal procedure issues. Chief among them are whether the doctrine of separation of powers permits a State Court to be part of such a process, if so what the relevant standard of proof should be, and how it compares with the traditional criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, and current thinking on the predictability of future behaviour. This article addresses * Acting Head of Department and Lecturer in Law, Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queen- sland. 178 DEAKIN LAW REVIEW VOLUME 10 NO 1 each of these issues, and submits that the recent majority High Court decision validating such preventive detention laws is, with respect, flawed on many counts.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Sevel
    MICHAEL SEVEL New Law School Building (F10) (+1) 228-323-1613 Eastern Avenue Camperdown (+61) 02 9351 0303 University of Sydney 2006 NSW [email protected] Australia http://sydney.edu.au/law/about/people/profiles/michael.sevel.php EDUCATION The University of Texas at Austin Ph.D., Philosophy, 2010 The University of Texas at Austin School of Law J.D., with honors, 2008 Virginia Tech University M.A., Philosophy, 2001 University of Southern Mississippi B.A., Philosophy, summa cum laude, 1999 ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT University of Sydney Law School 2017 - Present Senior Lecturer in Jurisprudence Durham University Spring 2019 Visiting Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study National University of Singapore Spring 2018 Senior Visiting Fellow, Centre for Maritime Law University of Miami School of Law Fall 2017 Visiting Professor of Law University of Sydney Law School 2012 - 2017 Lecturer in Jurisprudence Tulane University 2015 - 2016 Visiting Research Professor Center for Ethics and Public Affairs, Murphy Institute University of Miami School of Law 2011 - 2012 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law European University Institute 2010 - 2011 Max Weber Postdoctoral Fellow, 2010-11 1 AREAS OF RESEARCH & TEACHING INTEREST Torts, Admiralty and Maritime Law, Jurisprudence, Rule of Law, Moral and Political Philosophy PUBLICATIONS BOOKS Editor, THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF THE RULE OF LAW, Routledge (under contract). THE PHILOSOPHY OF JOSEPH RAZ, Oxford University Press (under contract). LEGITIMACY: THE STATE AND BEYOND (co-edited with Wojciech Sadurski and Kevin Walton), Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2018. Contributors: Joseph Raz, Philip Pettit, Fabienne Peter, Michael Sevel, Paul Weithman, Nicole Roughan, Martin Krygier, Wojciech Sadurski, Mattias Kumm, Cormac Mac Amhlaigh, Jiri Priban, Andreas Follesdal FREE WILL AND THE LAW: NEW PERSPECTIVES (co-edited with Allan McCay), Routledge, forthcoming 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Hodgson Speeches.Pdf
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES BANCO COURT BATHURST CJ AND THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT Tuesday 9 August 2011 FAREWELL CEREMONY FOR THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DAVID HODGSON AO UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT AS A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES 1 BATHURST CJ: This ceremony commemorates almost three decades of Justice Hodgson’s time as a judge of this Court. Though you will continue to serve this Court as an Acting Judge, we wish today to show our gratitude for the enormous contribution his Honour has made to this Court over his time as a judge, the Chief Judge in Equity and most recently as a judge of the Court of Appeal. 2 In my first farewell ceremony as Chief Justice of this Court, it is a privilege and an honour to have the opportunity to speak about Justice Hodgson. There are few who have made such a significant on the law, and on the culture of this Court as has Justice Hodgson. Others will no doubt speak about your early life; your achievements at Sydney Grammar School and then at the University of Sydney; your selection as a Rhodes Scholar; your accomplishments at Oxford University; your time at the bar; and your writings in philosophy. The focus of my remarks will be to pay tribute to your contribution as a judge. 3 You became a judge in 1983. Since then, excluding myself, there have been three Chief Justices of this Court, two of whom I am glad to see here today.
    [Show full text]
  • DAVID HODGSON | JUDGE 19/12/2015 1:10 Pm
    DAVID HODGSON | JUDGE 19/12/2015 1:10 pm Saturday Dec 19, 2015 10459 online now Do you know more about a story? Real Estate Cars Jobs Dating Newsletters Fairfax Media Network Judge blessed with flawless logic September 4, 2012 Read later Email article Print Reprints & permissions DAVID HODGSON, 1939-2012 If any incumbent of the NSW Supreme Court bench - so often stern and forbidding individuals - could fit the description of Plato's ''philosopher king'', it would be David Hodgson, who graced the bench for 28 years, stepping down only last year as the longest- serving Supreme Court judge at that time. Brilliant in mathematics and a first-class honours graduate in law, Hodgson applied his capacity for reasoning to his judgments. The present Chief Justice, Tom Bathurst, said Hodgson's philosophy contributed ''at the very least, to the flawless logic of his judgments''. David Hargraves Hodgson was born in Sydney on August 10, 1939, the son of a solicitor, Frederick, and Dorothy (nee Packer). He went to Sydney Grammar from 1950 to 1956, where he played rugby and served in the cadets. He was runner-up in the NSW under-18 chess championships, dux of the school, and topped the state in maths 1 and 11. With University of Sydney and Commonwealth scholarships, Hodgson enrolled in law, graduating in 1962 with honours, in the same class as Michael Kirby and Murray Gleeson. He then set off for Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship and married Raewyn Land in 1964. Hodgson completed his DPhil with a thesis Consequences of Utilitarianism, an analysis of the ideas of the philosopher Jeremy Bentham.
    [Show full text]
  • The Value of Consciousness and Free Will in a Technological Dystopia
    A peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies ISSN 1541-0099 28(1) – September 2018 The Value of Consciousness and Free Will in a Technological Dystopia Allan McCay University of Sydney Law School University of Sydney Foundation Program Centre for Agency, Values, and Ethics, Macquarie University [email protected] Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 28 Issue 1 – September 2018 - pgs 18–30 Abstract Yuval Noah Harari warns of a very pessimistic future for our species: essentially, that it may be superseded by non-conscious Artificial Intelligence that can do anything we can and more. This assumes that we are physically instantiated algorithms that can be improved on in all respects. On such an assumption, our labor will become economically worthless once AI reaches a certain level. This picture, however, changes markedly if we accept the views of David Hodgson in respect of consciousness, free will, what he calls plausible reasoning, and the relationship among these. On Hodgson’s account, there will always be valuable skills requiring a particular kind of judgment that are possessed by humans, but not by non- conscious algorithmic machines, however advanced. Introduction Are consciousness and free will worth anything? In this paper, I will focus on the value of consciousness and free will within economic systems of the future. I will do this by considering a recent book that envisages some dystopian future scenarios, in light of work at the intersection of philosophy of mind and the free will debate. The intention is to thereby consider philosophical debates about consciousness and free will, in a context that is some distance from traditional treatments of these topics – my context being one that is primarily concerned with the economic worth of human labor in a technological dystopia.
    [Show full text]
  • 76 BV Contents
    The Australian Law Journal —Vol 76 xi THE AUSTRALIAN LAW JOURNAL SECTIONS CURRENT ISSUES 1 CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY 7 INTERNATIONAL FOCUS 12 RECENT CASES 19 AUTHOR GUIDELINES 80 ARTICLES JANUARY 2002 THE STATE OF THE JUDICATURE 24 HON CHIEF JUSTICE MURRAY GLEESON AC SOUTH AFRICAN JUDGES AND HUMAN RIGHTS 34 HON MR JUSTICE RALPH H ZULMAN WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE FRENCH CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM? 49 BRON McKILLOP LIABILITY FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY: AN EVIDENCE-BASED APPRAISAL 73 CONTENTS PROFESSOR CHRIS TENNANT xii The Australian Law Journal —Vol 76 CURRENT ISSUES MR JUSTICE P W YOUNG Happy New Year! 1 50 years ago 1 Christmas at the Bar 1 Schoolies week 2 National Judicial College 2 Better training means fewer appeals 3 Judges health 3 Sentencing guidelines 4 The Rise of the Hero Judge 4 Trial by jury 4 Guesses 6 CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY PETER BUTT When is a landlord acting reasonably in refusing consent? 7 Banks, wives, and undue influence 8 Implied term not to vary interest rate unreasonably 10 INTERNATIONAL FOCUS RYSZARD PIOTROWICZ JANUARY JANUARY 2002 The case of MV Tampa: state and refugee rights collide at sea 12 RECENT CASES MR JUSTICE P W YOUNG Delayed judgments 19 Service of notices 19 Meetings 21 Trespass on adjoining land 21 Duty of care to escapee 22 Expert witness: personal relationship to a party 22 CONTENTS Lease: relief against forfeiture 22 Prior judgments as evidence 22 The Australian Law Journal —Vol 76 xiii ARTICLES THE STATE OF THE JUDICATURE An address by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia delivered
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the HON. MURRAY GLEESON AC QC Edited Transcript of a Three-Part
    1 THE HON. MURRAY GLEESON AC QC Edited transcript of a three-part interview with Juliette Brodsky for the NSW Bar Association August - September 2018 Part 1 14 August 2018 Q Juliette Brodsky interviewing Mr Murray Gleeson for the NSW Bar Association oral history – thank you very much for making time to speak with me today. A You’re welcome. Q It’s the eve of your 80th birthday at the time of this recording, and it’s been ten years since you concluded your time as Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. Can I just ask a quick question for my own curiosity – what activities are you currently involved in? A If you mean professional activities – Q Yes. A I’m a non-permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal which means that for most years I spend one month sitting on that court. In addition, I am often invited to make speeches to judges and barristers and people of that kind, and I do some commercial arbitrations, international and domestic. Q You’re patron of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Australia. A Yes, I have been for many years. It’s quite likely that I became patron of that body before it took on its current corporate form. The organisation would know that better than I do. But I think I have had a connection with that body, or its predecessor, since I was Chief Justice of NSW. Q Your views about (arbitration) as a form of alternative dispute resolution? There are some who believe ADR should just be called “dispute resolution”.
    [Show full text]