*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.

To purchase an article, please email: [email protected] or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).

The latest issue of the Australian Law Journal (Volume 91 Part 8) contains the following material:

CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Justice François Kunc

  • 11 Days in June
  • The High Court: Leave Applications on the Papers
  • ALRC Report into Elder Abuse Published
  • Corporate Counsel: A Distinct Branch of the Legal Profession?
  • Northern Territory Independent Commission Against Corruption
  • Sentencing Reform in Victoria
  • NSW Review of Laws Relating to Beneficiaries of Trusts
  • Hate Speech in NSW

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth

  • New South Wales Follows Queensland in Imposing a Statutory Duty of Care on Mortgagees Exercising Power of Sale

THE LEGAL OBSERVER – Editor: Michael Pelly

  • Bringing Personal Views to the Judicial Table

PERSONALIA – Editor: Clare Langford

International

  • Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG

Commonwealth

  • Justice Roger Derrington
  • Justice Michael Bryan Lee
  • Justice David O’Callaghan
  • Commonwealth Law Reports: New Co-Editors
  • Corrigenda

New South Wales

  • Justice Julia Lonergan
  • Justice Julie Ward
  • Justice Richard White

Queensland

  • Justice Margaret McMurdo AC

Western Australia

  • Appointment of Senior Counsel

AROUND THE NATION: TASMANIA – Editor: Justice Stephen Estcourt AO

  • Social Amplification of the Risk of Sex Offending

CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES – Editor: Robert Baxt AO

  • ASIC Flexes its Muscles

FROM THE LAW SCHOOLS – Editor: Professor Michael Coper

  • What Makes a “Good” Law School?

ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME – Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean

  • Slot Charters and Surrogate Ship Arrest

RECENT CASES – Editor: Ruth C A Higgins

  • Evidence: Admissibility – Tendency Evidence – Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 97 –Whether Tendency Required to Display Features of Similarity with Facts in Issue in Order to have “Significant Probative Value”
  • Wills: Testamentary Capacity – Standard of Proof – Foreign Law – Partial Intestacy – Whether Handwritten Note a Valid Will under Chinese or Victorian Law
  • Corporations: Arrangements and Reconstructions – Schemes of Arrangement or Compromise – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 411 – Whether Terms Create Different Classes of Creditors

Articles

Crime Commissions and Compulsory Examinations: Whither the Right to Silence? – Hon T F Bathurst AC and Sarah Schwartz

The bundle of rules and principles commonly described as the “right to silence” provide important mechanisms for a person to lawfully resist the coercive powers of the state to obtain information. In recent years, as criminal activity has become more sophisticated, governments in Australia have created a number of statutory crime commissions with the power to conduct compulsory examinations, thereby eroding many of the rules and principles forming part of the right to silence, such as the privilege against self-incrimination. Due to the increased use of coercive investigatory tactics by statutory commissions, courts have been called upon to deal with the legality of compulsory examinations in regard to their effect on the traditional rights afforded to an accused in a criminal trial. This article examines seven recent Australian cases which deal with this issue and demonstrates the ways in which the right to silence is being eroded by coercive investigations.

Ramifications of the Recognition of a Common Fund in Australian Class Actions: An Early Appraisal  Michael Legg

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has held that it is permissible to make orders in a class action to allow a litigation funder to be the beneficiary of a “common fund order”. This development holds out the prospect of supporting an open class definition, reducing the occurrence of competing class actions and lowering litigation funders’ fees. Such outcomes may in turn improve access to justice and the efficient resolution of disputes. Equally, the common fund may be argued to induce more class actions and a race to the court house leading to speculative or ill-founded claims. This article examines whether the above outcomes will occur and what factors will influence the achievement of such outcomes, including the incentives faced by litigation funders.

The Case Against a National Court of Appeal  Shawn Rajanayagam

There have been recurrent proposals for the creation of a national court of appeal. These proposals have not, thus far, been acted upon. The idea of a national court of appeal recently resurfaced in a speech given by the Chief Justice of Victoria, Marilyn Warren. In this article, I contend that a national court of appeal should not be established. That is so because the creation of a national court of appeal would upset the present appellate hierarchy, which, unlike the system that would exist if a national court of appeal were established, reflects a subtle balance between the requirements of consistency and comity, and the principle of federalism. Further, the extant system affords proper respect for the High Court’s role as Australia’s ultimate appellate court and its consequent position as conclusive arbiter of the single common law of Australia.

BOOK REVIEWS – Editor: Angelina Gomez

  • Role of the Solicitor-General by Gabrielle Appleby reviewed by W Sofronoff
  • Accommodating Muslims Under Common Law by Salim Farrar and Ghena Krayem reviewed by M J Beazley AO
  • The Roman Law of Obligations by Peter Birks reviewed by Arthur R Emmett AO QC
  • Doping in Sport and Law by Ulrich Haas and Deborah Healey reviewed by Darren C Kane

OBITUARY

  • John Riordan

For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 91 No 8 Contents.

Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU

For general queries, please contact: [email protected].