*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 94 Part 12) contains the following material:
CURRENT ISSUES – Editor: Justice François Kunc
- That Was the Year That Was
- Two New High Court Appointments
- Do We Need a Parliament?
- Farewell RBG and Welcome ACB
- The Launch of the Digital Law Association
- The Final Obsequies for the Bell Litigation
- 130 Years of Sydney University Law School
- AustLII Turns 25
- The Curated Page
CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY – Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth
- Adverse Possession – Alive and Well in Sydney
- Snapshot of Chinese Land Law: Real Rights, Transfer, and In/defeasible Title
AROUND THE NATION: NORTHERN TERRITORY – Editor: Hon Dean Mildren AM RFD QC
- Jesse Cumberland’s High Court Case “Zooms-in” on Procedural Fairness and Residual Discretion
CLASS ACTIONS – Editor: Justice Michael B J Lee
- Contingency Fees (Group Costs Orders) in Victoria after BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster
RECENT CASES – Editor: Ruth C A Higgins SC
False Imprisonment – Appellant Sentenced to Imprisonment Served by Periodic Detention – Appellant Unlawfully Imprisoned for 82 Days Following Sentence – Where Appellant’s Imprisonment Would Otherwise Have Lawfully Occurred – Whether Award of Only Nominal Damages Appropriate – Whether Appellant Entitled to Substantial Compensatory or Vindicatory Damages – Compensatory Principle and Counterfactual Analysis
Responsible Jurimetrics: A Reply To Silbert’s Critique Of The Victorian Court Of Appeal – Brian Opeskin and Gabrielle Appleby
In a recent article in this Journal, (“The First 24 Years of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Crime” (2020) 94 ALJ 455) Gavin Silbert QC examined the frequency with which criminal decisions of the Victorian Court of Appeal (VCA) have been reversed by the High Court on appeal and contended that the VCA’s performance over its first 24 years has declined significantly over time. We argue that his analysis offers an inaccurate and misleading account. Utilising more sophisticated jurimetric analysis, we conclude that the VCA’s reversal rates have indeed risen from historic lows, in both criminal and civil matters, but that the Court’s performance lies within the historical experience of Australia’s intermediate courts of appeal over the past two decades. At a time when practitioners and scholars are making increasing recourse to the allure of statistics, our reply advocates for a more nuanced understanding of the role of intermediate courts of appeal, and highlights the dangers to public confidence in the judicial system of quantitative analysis that lacks methodological rigour.
Companies are the principal legal form for business undertakings, reflecting the advantages of a separate legal personality which is continuous across time, limited liability of investors and a sophisticated organisational and decision-making structure which gives extensive business discretion to company directors. Their primary responsibility is to act in the interests of shareholders. Comparing English and Australian law, the article examines how decision-making by companies can be incentivised to take account of business, social and environmental externalities via regulation, taxation and the imposition of duties on company directors. It discusses how the tensions between shareholder interests and those of creditors, employees, consumers and the environment are managed in the course of decision-making structured around the business discretion allowed to directors. Civil society can play a substantial role in setting the environment for commercial activity, regarding what is acceptable and not acceptable.
In this article I consider the capacity of artificial intelligence to assist judges with sentence determination. I argue that once we are clear both about the capabilities of artificial intelligence and about how these capabilities differ from what judges do and are capable of doing, we will better understand why we must resist the potential of artificial intelligence to remove the responsibility for decision-making from judges in sentencing matters. I make my considerations with reference to current Australian sentencing practises.
100 Years Of Speaking: Gender Equality Among Barristers Before The High Court – Winsome Hall and George Williams
The participation of women as advocates before the High Court of Australia has never been higher. Nonetheless, female barristers are still underrepresented in appearances and in speaking roles before the nation’s highest court. This article continues the empirical study of female barristers before the High Court. It conducts an analysis of appearances before the High Court in 2019 to present a statistical overview of the rate at which women are appearing and speaking before the High Court.
BOOK REVIEW – Editor: Angelina Gomez
- A History of Criminal Law in New South Wales Volume 2: The New State 1901–1955, by GD Woods
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 94 No 12 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: [email protected]