*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 99 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES \u2013 Editor: Justice Fran\u00e7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW \u2013 Editors: Lyria Bennett Moses and Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n NEW ZEALAND \u2013 Editor: Justice Matthew Palmer<\/strong><\/p>\n Understanding and Measuring the Impact of Legal Scholarship<\/em> <\/strong><\/a>\u2013 Lyria Bennett Moses and Catherine Renshaw<\/p>\n Legal scholarship has the potential to improve law and justice, including through supporting policy development, the development of the law in the courts, and legal practice. Government and universities increasingly recognise the importance of scholarship having real world impact and seek to measure and reward influence. That is a challenging task, particularly in the context of legal scholarship, and is sometimes made more difficult by other policies and practices. This article explains the reasons why it is important to understand and measure the diverse impacts of legal scholarship and how that might best be done, drawing on a survey of legal researchers across Australian universities.<\/p>\n Expert Evidence in Queensland: Disclosure of Draft Expert Reports Should Be Abolished <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 Liam Kelly KC and Dan Butler KC<\/p>\n This article considers r 212(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 <\/em>(Qld). This rule provides that a document consisting of a statement or report of an expert is not privileged from disclosure. It is the contention of the authors that the rule ought to be repealed.<\/p>\n NZYQ the Long and Winding Road: Al Masri Revisited <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 Sydney Tilmouth<\/p>\n The recent decision of the High Court of Australia in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs<\/em>, unanimously holds that continued immigration detention is unlawful, when detention is not reasonably necessary for a legitimate and nonpunitive purpose and when there is no real prospect of removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future. This decision was proceeded by a 28 period of lingering questions as to the correctness of the Court\u2019s 2004 4-3 majority decisions in the cases of Al-Kateb v Godwin <\/em>and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Al Khafaji<\/em>.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW \u2013 Editor: Angelina Gomez<\/strong><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – ALJ Vol 99 No 1 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n
\n