*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 92 Part 5) contains the following material:

CURRENT ISSUES Editor: Justice François Kunc

  • Maritime Boundary Treaty Signed with Timor-Leste
  • #MeToo Comes to the Legal Profession
  • Victoria Legislates to Overcome Ellis v Pell
  • Contempt and Criticism of Judges
  • The “Justice State of the Nation” Address
  • Defamation Law Reform in the Internet Age
  • A Taste of Things to Come?
  • A Changing of the Guard at Thomson Reuters

CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth

  • The Age of Entitlement: Family Provision Claims by Adult Children


  • Vale Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service – 1973 to 2017

PERSONALIA Editor: Emily Vale


  • Justice Michael Baumann AM
  • Justice Sarah Derrington


  • Justice Peter Davis
  • Appointment of Queen’s Counsel


  • Justice Gregory Geason
  • Justice Shan Tennent


  • Justice Kim Hargrave
  • Solicitor-General

RECENT CASES Editor: Ruth CA Higgins SC

  • Civil Procedure – Whether Party Can Give Evidence While Face Covered by Veil – Discretionary Decision of Trial Judge to Refuse to Allow Witness to Give Evidence with Face Covered
  • Succession – Wills – Inheritance – Appeal Against a Decision Granting an Application Made by the Respondent Under s 6(1) of the Family Provision Act 1972 (WA) for Further and Better Provision From the Testator’s Estate
  • United Kingdom – Breach of Contract – Assessment of Damages – Wrotham Park Money Awards


Young’s “Fact finding made easy” in Refugee Law: A Former Practitioner’s Perspective – Douglas McDonald-Norman

This article considers the application of PW Young, “Fact finding made easy” (2006) 80 ALJ 454 to the unique challenges faced by decision-makers and advocates in refugee status determination (RSD) in Australia, drawing upon the author’s experiences in refugee law and advocacy. Unlike most other forms of proceedings, RSD offers little scope for corroboration of individual claims for asylum, requiring greater consideration of the inherent plausibility of claims and the manner in which such claims are presented than of whether external sources can verify particular claimed incidents. The utility of Young’s observations in this context is assessed and the need for caution in applying principles of fact-finding drawn from other jurisdictions to the particular context of RSD is emphasised.

Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil … and, Read No Evil: Confiscation of Literary Proceeds under Australian Criminal Property Confiscation Legislation – Dr Natalie Skead

Criminal property confiscation legislation is widely regarded as an important weapon in Australia’s arsenal against serious and organised crime. The statutory regimes provide for a wide range of confiscations, including the confiscation of literary proceeds – the benefits received from the commercial exploitation of one’s notoriety from having committed a crime. This article commences with an examination of the operation of literary proceeds confiscation in Australia by reference to the Commonwealth legislation. It goes on to consider, and suggest an explanation for, the seemingly selective application of the legislation in a series of high profile cases.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Sentencing: Comparing the Views of Judges and Jurors – Kate Warner, Julia Davis, Arie Freiberg, Caroline Spiranovic and Helen Cockburn

This article reports the findings of the first study in Australia to compare the responses of judges and jurors in 122 real cases who were asked to identify the appropriate relevance and weight that should be given to some of the most commonly listed aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing. The research reveals that, while jurors and judges in Victoria are alike in giving more weight to aggravating factors than mitigating factors and in supporting an individualised approach to sentencing, jurors give less weight than judges to some mitigating factors, including good character, being a first offender, youth, old age and physical illness. Jurors also adopted broader interpretations of aggravating factors like breach of trust and the relevance of prior convictions. They also preferred a different rationale for discounting sentences due to family hardship.

BOOK REVIEW Editor: Angelina Gomez

  • Can You See the Mountain? A Legal Journey with a Few Diversions, by Peter Heerey

For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 92 No 5 Contents.

Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU

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