*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> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the Criminal Law Journal <\/em>(Volume 46 Part 2) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Mirko Bagaric<\/em><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Appealing Convictions of Former Clients of Nicola Gobbo in Victoria: Some Issues and Perspectives<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Chris Corns<\/p>\n The case of Nicola Gobbo (also referred to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Lawyer X\u00e2\u20ac\u009d, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153EF\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Human source 3838\u00e2\u20ac\u009d) has been the subject of extraordinary media coverage and a significant number of appellate judgments concerning attempts to suppress the identity and role of Ms Gobbo as a human source for Victoria Police. More recently, a number of former clients of Ms Gobbo have challenged their convictions in the Victorian Court of Appeal (COA). This article considers the grounds upon which those convictions have been challenged and the operation of s 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 <\/em>(Vic) under which the COA can order the production of documents and other material required by an applicant\/appellant. Objections by Victoria Police, and other agencies, to the disclosure of documents on the basis of public interest immunity is also considered.<\/p>\n Click here to access this article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n Appellate Review of Fact Finding on Sentence in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Edward McGinness<\/p>\n For over 30 years, review by the Court of Criminal Appeal of factual findings on sentence has been guided by the deferential approach of R v O\u00e2\u20ac\u2122Donoghue (O\u00e2\u20ac\u2122Donoghue)<\/em>, preventing appellate intervention so long as the impugned factual finding was \u00e2\u20ac\u0153open\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to the sentencing judge. This deference has survived recent challenges mounted by the majorities in Clarke v The Queen <\/em>and Hordern v The Queen<\/em>, despite their identification of a lack of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153reasoned justification\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for the approach. This article supports a departure from O\u00e2\u20ac\u2122Donoghue <\/em>in arguing that it finds little support in the nature of an appeal under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 <\/em>(NSW), and, that coherence in the law should compel a more nuanced standard of review based instead on the nature of the impugned factual finding.<\/p>\n Click here to access this article on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n PHILLIPS\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 BRIEF<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Mark Finnane<\/em><\/p>\n Click here to access on New Westlaw<\/a><\/p>\n DIGEST OF CRIMINAL LAW CASES<\/a><\/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 – Crim LJ Vol 46 No 2 Contents<\/a> or here: New Westlaw Australia – Crim LJ Vol 46 No 2 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
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n