DOCSLIB.ORG

Scarcity, Sustainability & Public

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Scarcity, Sustainability & Public The Centre for International & Public Law ANU College of Law presents The Fifteenth Annual Public Law Weekend SCARCITY, SUSTAINABILITY & PUBLIC LAW 3 & 4 September 2010 l The Australian National University Program Internals.indd 1 30/08/2010 10:15:07 AM The Centre for International and Public law (CIPL) is delighted you have registered for the Fifteenth Annual Public Law Week-end, on the afternoon of Friday 3 September and Saturday 4 September 2010. Over the past year there has been much attention to policy issues involving scarcity of resources and sustainability in Australia. How do these issues play out when thinking about public law? The Friday afternoon sessions examine this question and then the following morning we will hear some important analysis of recent High Court decisions, public law from across the Tasman and some other stimulating thinking regarding pluralism and law concluding with an update on work from the Senate and an update on the 2010 Election. The conference program includes the 13th Annual Geoffrey Sawer lecture The US Courts and International Law to be presented by US Ambassador to Australia, Mr Jeff Bleich. Amongst other impressive credentials Ambassador Bleich served as a clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist on the US Supreme Court. The weekend also includes a book launch. Drawing together academics and public law practitioners from around the country, the Public law weekend will provide a perfect opportunity to hear fresh ideas about public law, and meet with a diverse range of academics and public lawyers from around the country. CIPL hopes you enjoy this important conference. page 2 Program Internals.indd 2 30/08/2010 10:15:07 AM general information CONFERENCE VENUES Friday 3 September 2010 LAW THEATRE (Sessions 1 & 2) ANU College of Law (bldg #5) The Australian National University Acton ACT 0200 2010 Geoffrey Sawer Lecture FINKEL THEATRE (Sawer Lecture) John Curtin School of Medical Research (bldg #131) Garran Road The Australian National University Acton ACT 0200 VANILLABEAN CAFE (Conference Dinner) John Curtin School of Medical Research (bldg #131) Garran Road The Australian National University Acton ACT 0200 Saturday 4 September 2010 FINKEL THEATRE John Curtin School of Medical Research (bldg #131) Garran Road The Australian National University Acton ACT 0200 Finkel map: http://law.anu.edu.au/coast/events/finkel.pdf Conference Contacts CIPL Administrator ANU College of Law T: (02) 6125 0454 E: [email protected] page 3 Program Internals.indd 3 30/08/2010 10:15:07 AM friday program FRIDAY 3 SEPTEMBER 2010 2–3.30pm SESSION 1: Law Theatre SCARCITY, SUSTAINABILITY & PUBLIC LAW CHAIR: Professor Kim Rubenstein, ANU College of Law Opening Professor KIM RUBENSTEIN, ANU College of Law Managing a Sustainable Population in a Federal System Professor GRAEME HUGO, University of Adelaide Rights and Resources Ms GABRIELLE McKINNON, ACT Human Rights Commission Citizenship as Property: A scarce resource? Ms NIAMH LENAGH MAGUIRE, Australian Government Solicitor 3.30–4pm Afternoon tea in foyer 4–5.30pm SESSION 2: Law Theatre WATER, FORESTS & PUBLIC LAW CHAIR: Dr Dominique Dalla-Pozza, ANU College of Law Water and the Constitution Ms DANIELLE FORRESTER, Australian Government Solicitor Water, Scarce Resources and Public Law in the Murray-Darling Basin Ms ROBYN BRIESE, Australian Government Solicitor Scarcity or Plenty in Tasmania’s Forests? A clash of legal and scientific understandings in the Wielangta forest dispute Mr BRAD JESSUP, ANU College of Law 5.30–6pm Drinks for Sawer Public Lecture at the Finkel Theatre foyer 6–7pm 2010 ANNUAL GEOFFREY SAWER LECTURE Finkel Theatre by JEFF BLEICH, US Ambassador to Australia The US Courts and International Law 7.15–9.30pm Conference Dinner Vanillabean Café, John Curtin School of Medical Research (next to Finkel Theatre) page 4 Program Internals.indd 4 30/08/2010 10:15:07 AM saturday program SATURDAY 4 SEPTEMBER 2010 9.30–11am SESSION 3: Finkel Theatre UPDATES FROM THE HIGH COURT CHAIR: Mr Leighton McDonald, ANU College of Law Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2010] HCA 24 (23 June 2010) Dr TRISH LUKER, University of Queensland Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 23 (23 June 2010) Mr DANIEL STEWART, ANU College of Law Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16 (26 May 2010) Ms THERESA BAW, NSW Bar 11–11.30am Morning tea in foyer 11.30am–1pm SESSION 4: Finkel Theatre UPDATES BEYOND THE COURTS CHAIR: Mr Moeen Cheema, ANU College of Law Land of the Long White Fog: Judicial review in New Zealand Mr DEAN KNIGHT, Victoria University of Wellington, NZ More Than One Law for All: Legal pluralism in Australia? Ms JAMILA HUSSAIN, University of Technology Sydney Update from the Senate Dr ROSEMARY LAING, Clerk of the Senate 1pm Lunch and launch of book in foyer Money and Politics: The democracy we can’t afford by Joo-Cheong Tham (published by University of NSW Press) To be launched by Emeritus Professor Marian Sawer, School of Politics and International Relations, The Australian National University and Vice-President of the International Political Science Association and Director-ANU of the Democratic Audit of Australia 2-3pm SESSION 5: Finkel Theatre UPDATE ON THE 2010 ELECTION CHAIR: Professor Kim Rubenstein, ANU College of Law Professor DON ROTHWELL, ANU College of Law Ms CHRISTINE WALLACE, Member of the Canberra Press Gallery Associate Professor ANNE TWOMEY, The University of Sydney 3pm Close of Conference If this conference is relevant to your professional development and is of significant intellectual or practical content, dealing with matters related to the practice of law, you can claim one CPD unit for each hour you attend, excluding refreshment breaks page 5 Program Internals.indd 5 30/08/2010 10:15:07 AM Speaker Biographies Theresa Baw NSW Bar Theresa Baw was called to the Bar in 2006. Previously, she worked as a solicitor for 5 years, firstly at Minter Ellison and then at Holman Webb, both in Sydney. She graduated with an Economics/Law (First Class Honours) from Sydney University. She also has Master of Commerce. Theresa currently practices from Frederick Jordan Chambers in a variety of commercial matters, including administrative law matters and a number of migration matters. Theresa appeared as junior counsel in the case she is here to discuss, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16 926 May 2010) Robyn Briese Australian Government Solicitor Robyn Briese is a Senior Lawyer in the Office of General Counsel, Australian Government Solicitor, specialising in constitutional law, international law and environmental law. Between 2007 and 2009 she spent the majority of her time seconded to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts as Counsel to the Water Policy Branch. Robyn has previously worked as an associate to Chief Justice Black in the Federal Court of Australia and as a law clerk at the International Court of Justice in the Hague. She has spent time as a research fellow and lecturer at the ANU College of Law, as a research fellow at the Centre for International Environmental Law in Geneva and in private practice. Danielle Forrester Australian Government Solicitor Danielle Forrester is a Senior Lawyer with the Australian Government Solicitor and is a Masters student at the Australian National University Brad Jessup ANU College of Law Brad is a human geographer and an environmental law specialist with the ANU College of Law. A graduate of Monash University and Cambridge University, with five years corporate law experience, Brad’s research draws on both his disciplines and his insights from legal practice. His primary research project, as part of his PhD study, focuses on concepts of ecological and environmental justice in Australian environmental law. As part of this project Brad has recently conducted field and interview research on the Wielangta conflict between Bob Brown and Forestry Tasmania. Graeme Hugo University of Adelaide Graeme HUGO is ARC Australian Professorial Fellow, Professor of the Department of Geographical and Environmental Studies and Director of the National Centre for Social Applications of Geographic Information Systems at the University of Adelaide. His research interests are in population issues in Australia and South East Asia, especially migration. He is the author of over three hundred books, articles in scholarly journals and chapters in books, as well as a large number of conference papers and reports. Jamila Hussain University of Technology Sydney Jamila is a senior lecturer in the Law Faculty at UTS. She has past experience in private legal practice, and as a lecturer in Land Law, Corporations Law and Practical Legal Training, but now teaches Asian Law and Legal Systems and Introductory Islamic Law. She is the Vice-President of the Muslim Women’s National Network and has considerable involvement in community activities among Muslim communities. page 6 Program Internals.indd 6 30/08/2010 10:15:07 AM Dean Knight Victoria University of Wellington Dean is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law at Victoria University of Wellington and an Associate Director of the New Zealand Centre for Public law. His scholarly interests lie in public law, particularly administrative law and local government. He has written numerous articles and chapters on public law topics and is a member of the editorial committee of the New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law. As well as being a regular commentator on Radio New Zealand National on public law issues, he writes a blog on contemporary legal issues: LAWS179: Elephants and the Law (www.laws179. co.nz). Rosemary Laing Clerk of the Senate Rosemary Laing was appointed as the 13th Clerk of the Senate in December 2009 following the retirement of Harry Evans. Principal author and editor of the Annotated Standing Orders of the Australian Senate (2009), she has written widely on parliamentary topics.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • APR 2016-07 Winter Text FA2.Indd
    Printer to adjust spine as necessary Australasian Parliamentary Review Parliamentary Australasian Australasian Parliamentary Review JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALASIAN STUDY OF PARLIAMENT GROUP Editor Colleen Lewis Modernising parliament for future generations AUTUMN/WINTER 2016 Minority government: a backbench and crossbench perspective Parliamentary committees connecting with the public • VOL 31 NO 1 31 VOL AUTUMN/WINTER 2016 • VOL 31 NO 1 • RRP $A35 AUSTRALASIAN STUDY OF PARLIAMENT GROUP (ASPG) AND THE AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW (APR) APR is the official journal of ASPG which was formed in 1978 for the purpose of encouraging and stimulating research, writing and teaching about parliamentary institutions in Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific Membership of the Australasian Study of (see back page for Notes to Contributors to the journal and details of AGPS membership, which includes a subscription to APR). To know more about the ASPG, including its Executive membership and its Chapters, Parliament Group go to www.aspg.org.au Australasian Parliamentary Review Membership Editor: Dr Colleen Lewis, [email protected] The ASPG provides an outstanding opportunity to establish links with others in the parliamentary community. Membership includes: Editorial Board • Subscription to the ASPG Journal Australasian Parliamentary Review; Dr Peter Aimer, University of Auckland Dr Paul Reynolds, Parliament of Queensland • Concessional rates for the ASPG Conference; and Dr David Clune, University of Sydney Kirsten Robinson, Parliament of Western Australia • Participation in local Chapter events. Dr Ken Coghill, Monash University Kevin Rozzoli, University of Sydney Rates for membership Prof. Brian Costar, Swinburne University of Technology Prof. Cheryl Saunders, University of Melbourne Dr Jennifer Curtin, University of Auckland Emeritus Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Madelaine Sophie Chiam ORCID Identifier: Orcid.Org/0000-0002-1792-765X Submitted in Total Fulfilment of the Requirements Of
    INTERNATIONAL LAW IN AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC DEBATE 2003, 1965, 1916 Madelaine Sophie Chiam ORCID Identifier: orcid.org/0000-0002-1792-765X Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 2017 Melbourne Law School University of Melbourne ABSTRACT This thesis challenges the view that international law gained a new profile during the 2003 debates over the Iraq War by arguing that the contemporary prominence of international law in public debate is not new. The perception that international law was widely-used in the 2003 public debates, and that it had been relatively absent from public debates before then, has not been the subject of extensive analysis. Scholarship investigating the role of international law in the public debates around the 2003 Iraq War has focussed on the impact of that debate on government decision-making, rather than on the speakers and forms of the debate itself. This thesis takes a different approach by examining both the people who used international legal language in public debate and how they used it through analysis of texts of the debates over Australia’s participation in the 2003 Iraq War, the Vietnam War and the First World War. The thesis argues that there are two primary forms in which speakers have articulated international legal arguments for and against war in public debates: international law as a bundled justification and international law as an autonomous justification. I use the term ‘bundled justifications’ to describe vocabulary that carried a collective of undifferentiated standards, such as those of law, morality, strategy, economics and ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Speech 2014
    Free Speech 2014 SYMPOSIUM PAPERS Supporting sponsors Major sponsors The Australian Human Rights Commission encourages the dissemination and exchange of information provided in this publication. All material presented in this publication is provided under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia, with the exception of: • the Australian Human Rights Commission logo • photographs and images • any content or material provided by third parties. The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website, as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence. Attribution Material obtained from this publication is to be attributed to the Australian Human Rights Commission with the following copyright notice: © Australian Human Rights Commission 2014. ISBN 978-1-921449-66-6 Free Speech 2014 • Symposium Papers Design and layout Dancingirl Designs Electronic format This publication can be found in electronic format on the website of the Australian Human Rights Commission: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/free-speech-2014 SYMPOSIUM PAPERS Australian Human Rights Commission 2014 everyone, everywhere, everyday Contents everyone, everywhere, everyday iii Message from the Commissioner 1 1 Opening session 2 1.1 Emeritus Professor Gillian Triggs 2 Topic: Free speech and human rights in Australia 2 1.2 Tim Wilson 4 Topic: Free speech stocktake 4 1.3 Professor Rosalind Croucher 6 Topic: ALRC Inquiry into Freedoms 6 1.4 Andrew Greste 10 Topic: The human cost of restricting free speech 10 2 Accommodating Rights (Session 1) 13 2.1 Chris Berg 13 Topic: Free speech in a liberal democracy 13 2.2 Dr Roy Baker 15 Topic: Does defamation law deserve ridicule? 15 2.3 Dr Augusto Zimmermann 17 Topic: Why free speech protects the weak, not the strong (and why the government’s backtrack on RDA section 18C compromises our ‘national unity’) 17 2.4 Dr Kesten C.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Executive Power' Issue of the UWA Law Review
    THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA LAW REVIEW Volume 43(2) March 2018 EXECUTIVE POWER ISSUE Introduction Dr Murray Wesson ............................................................................................................. 1 Executive Power in Australia - Nurtured and Bound in Anxiety The Hon Robert French AC ............................................................................................ 16 The Strange Death of Prerogative in England Thomas Poole .................................................................................................................... 42 Judicial Review of Non-Statutory Executive Action: Australia and the United Kingdom Amanda Sapienza .............................................................................................................. 67 Section 61 of the Commonwealth Constitution and an 'Historical Constitutional Approach': An Excursus on Justice Gageler's Reasoning in the M68 Case Peter Gerangelos ............................................................................................................. 103 Nationhood and Section 61 of the Constitution Dr Peta Stephenson ........................................................................................................ 149 Finding the Streams' True Sources: The Implied Freedom of Political Communication and Executive Power Joshua Forrester, Lorraine Finlay and Augusto Zimmerman .................................. 188 A Comment on How the Implied Freedom of Political Communication Restricts Non-Statutory Executive Power
    [Show full text]
  • Debunking Dreyfus on Free Speech and Freedom
    Disclaimer : Nothing in this letter should be construed as threatening nor advocating unlawful acts. Suspects are innocent until the facts against them are proven and convicted in a court of justice. This does not discuss the contents of the current super-injunction. Debunking Dreyfus on Free Speech and Freedom Author: Brendan Jones Brisbane, QLD, Australia E-mail: [email protected] Being an Open Letter to ALP Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus MP QC regarding his speech to the HRC Free Speech 2014 Symposium Cc: Director-General of Security – ASIO, David Irvine (pp. 62-65) Online at: http://victimsofdsto.com/debunking-drefyus/ Page 1 of 66(218) September 10(11), 2014 NoFibs Journalist: “I’m a strong free speech advocate ... So I’m thrilled that shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus QC has taken a stand and wish him success in the long hard climb ahead.” 98 Brendan Jones: “Mr. Dreyfus is no advocate for free speech, but the fact that he has convinced you he is – and in just one short speech – has persuaded me he’s a first class barrister.” 98 Journalist Martin Hirst: “I loved that he rubbed their pretty little noses in it. He made the point strongly that the so-called “marketplace of ideas” is a conservative myth that bears little relation to reality.” 98 133 Brendan Jones: “All Dreyfus did was say he rejected it. He never explained why. Google "Sophistry"” 98 131 US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo: ‘Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.’ US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: “Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary.
    [Show full text]
  • Searching for 'The Individual Judge' in the Joint
    0 UNSW Law Journal Volume 40(2) 10 ADDRESSING LOSS OF IDENTITY IN THE JOINT JUDGMENT: SEARCHING FOR THE INDIVIDUAL JUDGE IN THE JOINT JUDGMENTS OF THE MASON COURT ANDISHEH PARTOVI, RUSSELL SMYTH, INGRID ZUKERMAN AND JOSEPH VALENTE I INTRODUCTION There has been a spate of recent articles by current, and former, judges in Australia debating the relative merits of joint and separate judgments.1 One of the arguments against joint judgments is that they entail the loss of individual voice and due recognition for the development of the law. As Justice Kiefel puts it: It must be frankly acknowledged that some judges may feel a sense of loss when a judgment they have written is published under the names of all the other judges who have agreed with it, but may not have contributed substantially to it. A judge’s loss of identity as author may be exacerbated on occasions when commentators guess, often wrongly, about authorship. A judge whose judgments are more often than not agreed in by his or her colleagues will not necessarily achieve the recognition or reputation of other judges. This may result in a misconception about influence.2 One imagines that for a judge sitting in a final appeal court who authors a joint judgment, or a substantial component thereof, the sense of loss of due recognition would be felt strongest when: (a) there is a high proportion of joint Research Fellow, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University. Professor, Department of Economics and Deputy Dean (Academic Resourcing), Monash Business School, Monash University. Professor, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University Co-Founder and CEO, Ebla <http://www.ebla.com>.
    [Show full text]
  • Australasian Parliamentary Review
    Australasian Parliamentary Review JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALASIAN STUDY OF PARLIAMENT GROUP Editor: Rodney Smith, Professor of Australian Politics, University of Sydney Federalism in Australia Public Engagement and Budgets in Bangladesh Televising Parliament in New Zealand AUTUMN/WINTER 2019 • VOL 34 NO 1 • RRP $A35 AUSTRALASIAN STUDY OF PARLIAMENT GROUP (ASPG) AND THE AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW (APR) The APR is the official journal of ASPG, which was formed in 1978 for the purpose of encouraging and stimulating research, writing and teaching about parliamentary institutions in Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific (see back page for Notes to Contributors to the journal and details of AGPS membership, which includes a subscription to APR). To know more about the ASPG, including its Executive membership and its Chapters, go to www.aspg.org.au AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW Editor: Professor Rodney Smith, University of Sydney. Email: [email protected] EDITORIAL BOARD Dr Peter Aimer, University of Auckland Professor Graeme Orr, University of Queensland Jennifer Aldred, Public and Regulatory Policy Dr Harry Phillips, Parliament Consultant of Western Australia Dr Dr David Clune, University of Sydney Stephen Redenbach, Dr Ken Coghill, Monash University Parliament of Victoria Professor Brian Costar, Swinburne University of Dr Paul Reynolds, Parliament Technology of Queensland Dr Jennifer Curtin, University of Auckland Kirsten Robinson, Parliament Dr Gareth Griffith, NSW Parliamentary Library of Western Australia Professor
    [Show full text]
  • Australasian Parliamentary Review Autumn 2013, Vol. 28, No. 1
    Australasian Parliamentary Review Autumn 2013, Vol. 28, No. 1 FROM YOUR EDITOR Jennifer Aldred 1 ARTICLES 3 Race and the Australian Constitution George Williams 4 The dilemmas of drafting a Constitution for a new state Anne Twomey 17 Arm’s length bodies in the Australian Capital Territory — time for review? Roger Wettenhall 25 # Understanding conscience vote decisions: the case of the ACT Peter Balint and Cheryl Moir 43 # Committees in a unicameral parliament: impact of a majority government on the ACT Legislative Assembly committee system Grace Concannon 57 Guarding MPs’ integrity in the UK and Australia David Solomon 71 Unproclaimed legislation — the delegation of legislative power to the executive Alex Stedman 83 # Through the lens of accountability: referral of inquiries by ministers to upper house committees Merrin Thompson 97 # Strengthening parliaments in nascent democracies: the need to prioritize legislative reforms Abel Kinyondo 109 _________________________ # These papers have been double blind reviewed to academic standards. PARLIAMENTARY CHRONICLES 125 Electoral law and the campaign trail Harry Phillips 126 ‘From the Tables’ A round-up of administrative and procedural developments in the Australasian Parliaments — Robyn Smith 130 BOOK REVIEWS 139 Anne Twomey: Reluctant Democrat — Sir William Denison in Australia 1847–1861 140 Mary Crawford: Tales from the Political Trenches 143 David Clune: • Politics, Society, Self & • What is to be Done?: The struggle for the soul of the labour movement 146 Kevin Rozzoli: The Australian Policy Handbook: Fifth Edition 149 © Australasian Study of Parliament Group. Requests for permission to reproduce material from Australasian Parliamentary Review should be directed to the Editor. ISSN 1447-9125 FROM YOUR EDITOR Jennifer Aldred This issue carries three articles on various topics dealing with governance in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2020
    ANNUAL REPORT 2020 ESTABLISHMENT As was noted in previous Annual Reports, the Society has its origins in the Centenary Celebrations of the NSW Bar Association in 2002. The Society is named for Francis Forbes (1784-1841), the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW, 1824-1837. He was knighted in 1837. The inaugural meeting of the Council of the Forbes Society was held on Monday 5 August 2002. The 'founding' members of the Society were the inaugural members of its Council and its Honorary Executive Director. The inaugural members of the Council were: . Professor Bruce Kercher of Macquarie University (President); . Justice Keith Mason AC of the NSW Court of Appeal (Senior Vice President); . Wendy Robinson QC of the NSW Bar (Junior Vice President); . Geoff Lindsay S.C. of the NSW Bar (Secretary); . Carol Webster of the NSW Bar (Treasurer); . Michael Sexton, S.C., Solicitor General of NSW; Laurie Glanfield AM, Director General of the NSW Attorney General’s Department; Mark Richardson, Chief Executive of the Law Society of NSW and Stephen Toomey of Toomey Pegg Solicitors (Members). The Honorary Executive Director of the Society is Greg Tolhurst (Executive Director of the NSW Bar Association). The current members of the Council are: . Chief Justice James Allsop AO (President) . Justice Geoff Lindsay (Senior Vice President) . Professor Mark Lunney (Junior Vice President) . Simon Chapple (Secretary) . Carol Webster SC (Treasurer) . Dr Ben Chen, David Miller, Wendy Robinson QC, and Michael Tidball (Members) In accordance with the Society’s constitution all Councillors retire at this Annual General Meeting and are eligible for re-election.
    [Show full text]
  • TABLE of CONTENTS a Delaide L
    A A A TABLETABLE OFOF CONTENTSCONTENTS delaide delaide delaide Editorial Note i TDISTINGUISHEDTHHEE 2 2001111 J JOOHHNN B BRRA LECTURESAYY O ORRAATTIIOONN L L L aw aw aw DMarkDaavvidid I LeemingIrrvviinene JudicialFFrreeeeddomom Review a anndd S Seec cofuurr iVice-Regaltityy: :M Maaiinnttaaiinn iDecisions:inngg T Thehe B Baal alSouthannccee 229955 Australia v O’Shea, its Precursors and its Progeny 1 R R R AARRTTIICCLLEESS John V Orth The Strange Career of the Common Law in eview eview eview THETHE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OFOF ADELAIDEADELAIDE JJaammeess A Allalann a anndd NorthTTiimeme a Carolinaanndd C Chhaannc c ee a anndd t thehe P Prreevvaaiilliinngg O Orrtthhooddooxxyy i inn 23 ADELAIDEADELAIDE LAWLAW REVIEWREVIEW AFORENSICAnntthhoonnyy S Seennaan nSCIENCEaayyaakkee SPECIALLLeeggaal lA Accaadde eCOLLECTIONmmiaia H Haappppeenneetthh t too T Thheemm A Alll — — A A S Sttuuddyy ASSOCIATIONASSOCIATION ooff t thehe T Toopp L Laaww J Joouurrnnaallss o off A Auussttrraalliaia a anndd N Neeww Ze Zeaalalanndd 330077 2015 2015 2015 Gary Edmond What Lawyers Should Know About the Forensic ‘Sciences’ 33 LLaauurreennttiaia Mc McKKeessssaarr TThhrreeee C Coonnssttitituuttioionnaal lT Thheemmeess i inn t thhee H Higighh C Coouurrt t J D Heydon Evidenceooff A Auussttrraa loflia:ia: Forensic1 1 S Seepptteemm bScientificbeerr 2 2000088––11 99 J OpinionJuunene 2 20101 0and0 the 334477 Rules for Admissibility 101 TKeelahThhaannuujaja RE Ro oGddr rWilliamsigigoo WhyUUnncco oDon’tnnssccioion natheabblel eGatekeepers D Deemmaannddss U Unn dGuarddeerr O Onn-
    [Show full text]