*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 or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Australian Law Journal (Volume 98 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Justice Fran\u00e7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW<\/a> \u2013 Editors: Lyria Bennett Moses and Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n PERSONALIA<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Emily Vale<\/strong><\/p>\n STATUTORY INTERPRETATION<\/a> \u2013 Editor: The Hon John Basten<\/strong><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Ruth CA Higgins SC<\/strong><\/p>\n A Step-Wise Approach to Less Reliance on Prison: Victim Restitution and Proportionate Sanctions as the Main Focus in Sentencing Fraud Offenders<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u2013 <\/strong>Mirko Bagaric and Mia Schlicht<\/p>\n For the first time in several decades there are considered and wide-spread calls for significant reform of the sentencing system. This is especially the situation in the United States, largely in response to a mass incarceration crisis. Similar proposals are being advanced in Australia. It has been suggested that prison numbers could be reduced by to 80%. This suggestion is arguably too radical. However, less ambitious reforms are achievable. In this article, it is proposed that a step-wise approach to less reliance on prison should start with imposing alternative sanctions for most fraud offenders, given that the harm caused by their offending is generally less serious than other offence types. This reform, if successful, could act as a model for the greater use of alternative sanctions for other offence types \u2013 in particular other non-violent offence types.<\/p>\n SDCV v Director-General of Security: Procedural Fairness and the Ability to Decide a Matter Based on Secret Evidence Not Disclosed to a Party or Their Legal Team<\/b><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Pauline Collins and Anthony Gray<\/p>\n With changes afoot in the judges sitting on the High Court later in 2023 this article addresses a hope for a future change enabling greater protection of fundamental rights of an individual to know the accusations and evidence against them. The decision in SDCV, by a slim majority of one, validated the challenged law in s 46(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 <\/em>(Cth). This precluded the right of SDCV or his legal team from knowledge of the evidence against him. This article documents the decision and reasoning of the High Court in this case. It sets forth the basis for concern in such national security situations.<\/p>\n Australia\u2019s Place in the British Empire 1900\u20131950<\/b> <\/em><\/a>\u2013 <\/strong>Richard Travers<\/p>\n When the Commonwealth of Australia was inaugurated in 1901, it became the newest colony in the British Empire. When the Australia Acts <\/em>took effect in 1986, the last constitutional vestiges tying Australia to Britain were severed. Sometime between 1901 and 1986, Australia had become a sovereign nation, independent of Britain. When, and in what circumstances, did that happen?<\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – ALJ Vol 98 No 1 Contents.<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/strong><\/h3>\n