*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 Australian Law Journal (Volume 96 Part 5) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Fran\u00c3\u00a7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n CONSTITUTIONAL LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Anne Twomey<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Dr Damien J Cremean<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n FAMILY LAW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Richard Ingleby<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Against Jury Comparisons<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/strong> Gary Edmond<\/p>\n This article explains why jurors should not be invited, or allowed, to identify persons in crime-related images and sound recordings. It draws directly on scientific research, never seriously considered by Australian courts, which shows that ordinary people are unexpectedly error-prone at face and voice comparisons. The article rejects the longstanding legal commitment to the identification of unfamiliar persons in images and voice recordings being commonplace \u00e2\u20ac\u201c that is resembling our everyday social interactions. It also explains how accusatorial trials generate cognitive biases (eg through expectation, suggestion and confirmation) that irreparably contaminate juror perception and cognition. Scientific research indicates that jurors are likely to identify the defendant even when the defendant does not feature in the images or recording. The article also explains why investigators (eg police and translators) should not be allowed to express their biased and inexpert opinions in criminal proceedings. For, investigators are vulnerable to many of the same risks confronting jurors (and judges and appellate courts).<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Rethinking Lawyer Immunity<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c<\/strong> Nicholas Saady and Professor Tania Sourdin<\/p>\n For many years, the Australian advocate immunity doctrine has prevented barristers and solicitor-advocates from being civilly sued in relation to their acts or omissions which are connected to court litigation or a court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s determination of a case. The immunity doctrine has been recently criticised in Australia, and abandoned or modified in other common law jurisdictions. This article examines the nature, scope and application of the immunity doctrine in Australia, particularly in mediation. It then compares the Australian position to that in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. It also provides guidance to lawyers about dealing with the application of the immunity in practice, and proposes potential areas of reform to the current Australian law surrounding the immunity.<\/p>\n Click here to access article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEWS<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: Westlaw AU \u00e2\u20ac\u201c ALJ Vol 96 No 5 Contents<\/a> or here: New Westlaw Australia \u00e2\u20ac\u201c ALJ Vol 96 No 5 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n