*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0or\u00c2\u00a0contact us on 1300 304 195\u00c2\u00a0(Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980\u00c2\u00a0(international customers) during business hours\u00c2\u00a0(Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Australian Law Journal<\/em> (Volume 91 Part 8) contains the following material:<\/span><\/p>\n CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Fran\u00c3\u00a7ois Kunc <\/strong><\/p>\n LETTER TO THE EDITOR <\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan Edgeworth <\/strong><\/p>\n THE LEGAL OBSERVER<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Michael Pelly <\/strong><\/p>\n PERSONALIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Clare Langford <\/strong><\/p>\n International <\/strong><\/p>\n Commonwealth <\/strong><\/p>\n New South Wales <\/strong><\/p>\n Queensland <\/strong><\/p>\n Western Australia <\/strong><\/p>\n AROUND THE NATION: TASMANIA<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Stephen Estcourt AO <\/strong><\/p>\n CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Robert Baxt AO <\/strong><\/p>\n FROM THE LAW SCHOOLS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Professor Michael Coper <\/strong><\/p>\n ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean <\/strong><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Ruth C A Higgins <\/strong><\/p>\n Crime Commissions\u00c2\u00a0and Compulsory Examinations: Whither\u00c2\u00a0the Right\u00c2\u00a0to Silence?<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c\u00c2\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>Hon T F Bathurst AC and Sarah Schwartz<\/p>\n The bundle of rules and principles commonly described as the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153right to silence\u00e2\u20ac\u009d 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.<\/p>\n Ramifications\u00c2\u00a0of\u00c2\u00a0the Recognition\u00c2\u00a0of\u00c2\u00a0a Common Fund\u00c2\u00a0in Australian Class Actions: An Early Appraisal<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/strong><\/em>\u00c2\u00a0Michael Legg<\/p>\n 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 \u00e2\u20ac\u0153common fund order\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. This development holds out the prospect of supporting an open class definition, reducing the occurrence of competing class actions and lowering litigation funders\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 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.<\/p>\n The Case Against\u00c2\u00a0a National Court\u00c2\u00a0of Appeal<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/strong><\/em>\u00c2\u00a0Shawn Rajanayagam<\/p>\n 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s role as Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ultimate appellate court and its consequent position as conclusive arbiter of the single common law of Australia.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Angelina Gomez <\/strong><\/p>\n OBITUARY <\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 91 No 8 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\n