*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 10) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Justice Fran\u00e7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY \u2013 Editors: Robert Angyal SC and Brendan <\/strong>Edgeworth<\/strong><\/p>\n STATUTORY INTERPRETATION \u2013 Editor: The Hon John Basten<\/strong><\/p>\n PERSONALIA<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Emily Vale<\/strong><\/p>\n Commonwealth<\/p>\n Australian Capital Territory<\/p>\n New South Wales 732<\/p>\n Queensland<\/p>\n Victoria<\/p>\n Western Australia<\/p>\n The Use and Misuse of Metaphors<\/em><\/a> \u2013<\/strong> The Hon William Gummow AC and Aryan Mohseni<\/p>\n The use of metaphors in legal reasoning has received renewed attention in recent decisions of the High Court of Australia and the UK Supreme Court. Reliance upon metaphor has a history of criticism as apt to confuse and mislead, but also has been described as a means of persuasion which assists in understanding legal doctrine. There are various species of legal metaphor. In this article, these are discussed under eight headings.<\/p>\n Purpose, Procedure and Performance: Oaths and Affirmations Reconsidered<\/em><\/a> \u2013<\/strong> Fiona Hum and Darshan Datar<\/p>\n Oaths and affirmations exist as ceremonial expressions of the witness vowing to give truthful evidence. This ritual is said to secure the legitimacy of the trial. These choices of vows have received little scholarly attention and are usually treated as part of a harmless tradition. The authors contend oaths and affirmations have both theoretical and pragmatic harms that impact the objectivity and neutrality of the trial process. First, we demonstrate that oaths and affirmations are justified due to their perceived role in legitimising the trial. We theoretically demonstrate that oaths only serve as a ritual to legitimise the trial process and accordingly do not serve as a barometer to demonstrate the truthfulness of a witness. Second, drawing on empirical data from case law, we argue lawyers can have an adverse impact upon certain religions by undermining the credibility of religious witnesses who do not take oaths.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n