*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\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 (Volume 95 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Fran\u00c3\u00a7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean <\/strong><\/p>\n EQUITY AND TRUSTS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Mark Leeming<\/strong><\/p>\n Three Key Issues Arising Out Of The Engineers Case: A Reply<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong><\/em>Nicholas Aroney<\/p>\n This article addresses three key issues arising out of the Engineers Case: the extent of Commonwealth legislative powers vis-a-vis the legislative powers of the States; the immunity of the States from Commonwealth interference; and methods of constitutional interpretation. These key issues were raised in articles recently published by Sir Anthony Mason, Professor Sarah Murray, and Professor Ros Dixon and Dr Brendan Lim in response to the author\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s recently published centenary assessment of the Engineers Case.<\/p>\n Unexplained Wealth Orders In Australia Limits To Transparency And Responsibility For Other People\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Wealth<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong><\/em>Paul Latimer<\/p>\n An unexplained wealth order (UWO) is a court order, conviction-based or non-conviction based, to direct a person to explain the source of their financial circumstances or face the risk that their assets may be seized by the government. UWOs reverse traditional legal values by accepting, for example, deemed guilt, the abolition of the privilege against self-incrimination, retrospectivity and the reverse burden of proof. The legislation is similar but different in Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s nine jurisdictions with, for example, differences in agencies, definitions and procedures. These raise procedural issues such as procedural fairness, miscarriage of justice, civil liberties, constitutional law and the rights of innocent third parties like spouses who may be affected by an order. Those recommending and designing UWOs must remember that they must take the courts as they find them, which include the principle of legality, legal representation, the right to appeal and ensuring that justice is done among all parties.<\/p>\n Climate Conscious Lawyering<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong><\/em>Hon Justice Brian J Preston SC<\/p>\n Climate change is a multi-scalar problem with both global and local dimensions. Climate change is a global problem, with the combined effect of many local actions contributing to global climate change. It is also a local problem as the impacts of climate change are experienced locally. This interaction between scales highlights how local actors and action can influence global, national, subnational and local governance. Lawyers are one group of actors who can meaningfully contribute to climate change action. Climate change places a responsibility on lawyers to adopt a climate conscious rather than a climate blind approach in their daily legal practice. A climate conscious approach requires an active awareness of the reality of climate change and how it interacts with daily legal problems. Consistent with legal ethics, there are at least five ways in which lawyers can implement this climate conscious approach in their daily legal practice. Each of these ways challenges common conceptions (or rather misconceptions) about the role and duties of a lawyer.<\/p>\n Adoption In Australia: Past, Present And Considerations For The Future<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong><\/em>Amy Conley Wright, Betty Luu and Judith Cashmore<\/p>\n Australia has a troubled history with adoption, arising from the legacy of forced and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153closed\u00e2\u20ac\u009d adoptions and the systematic removal of Indigenous children, known as the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Stolen Generations\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. Evidence from national inquiries and research shows that closed and forced adoptions denied children connection to their roots and had detrimental effects on children, birth parents, and their family and community networks. In recent years, the steady increase in the number of children in out-of-home care has prompted reconsideration of adoption, emphasising its purpose as a service to the child. Policy and legislative reforms to out-of-home care across Australian jurisdictions are promoting legal permanency for children who would otherwise grow up in care. Yet, issues continue to be debated about the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153best interests of the child\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, and the trade-offs of adoption compared with alternative legal orders, and the ethics of dispensing with birth parents\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 consent. The adoption of Indigenous children remains very contentious.<\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here: ALJ Vol 95 No 1 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n