*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 6) contains the following material:<\/p>\n
CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Justice Fran\u00e7ois Kunc<\/strong><\/p>\n FROM THE LAW SCHOOLS<\/a> \u2013 Editor: Emeritus Professor David Barker<\/strong><\/p>\n FAMILY LAW \u2013 Editor: Grant T Riethmuller <\/strong><\/p>\n NEW ZEALAND \u2013 Editor: Justice Matthew Palmer <\/strong><\/p>\n AROUND THE NATION: NORTHERN TERRITORY \u2013 Editor: Hon Dean Mildren AM RFD KC<\/strong><\/p>\n The Misalignment between Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence<\/strong><\/em> <\/a>\u2013 Professor Mirko Bagaric and Maya Arguello Gomez<\/p>\n Artificial intelligence is being increasingly utilised in many industries. Potentially, artificial intelligence can have a significant role in legal decision-making. This article explores the desirability of using artificial intelligence in sentencing. While theoretically artificial intelligence can be used to make sentencing determinations, the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing in Australia means that pragmatically artificial intelligence systems lack the sophistication to replace judicial determinations or even provide a coherent draft of these decisions. Artificial intelligence can yet have an important role in one aspect of the sentencing landscape: determining the likelihood of recidivism. It can also have a beneficial role in informing defendants, victims, lawyers and the general public of the likely outcome of sentencing decisions.<\/p>\n The Doctrine of Election before and after Allianz \u2013 Part I<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 The Hon Kevin Lindgren AM KC and Elisa Holmes SC<\/p>\n This two-part article was prompted by the High Court decision in Allianz, which we discuss in Part II. Part I distinguishes between waiver, election and estoppel, and draws attention to some of the difficulties associated with the principle of election, that have often been acknowledged. In Part I, we consider termination and rescission, the distinction between rescission at common law and in equity, and, importantly, the role of affirmation in relation to each. Part II will be published in next month\u2019s issue of this Journal.<\/p>\n The Welfare of Australians \u2013 Part 2<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Donald Robertson<\/p>\n The previous part of this article considered the legal and economic background to the phrase \u201cwelfare of Australians\u201d in s 2 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010 <\/em>(Cth), a provision that is central to the new compulsory notification regime coming into full effect in 2026. Having regard to that context, this part applies that learning to the proper reading of the phrase. An Appendix sets out the specific interpretative principles which apply to legislation which has \u201cmixed economic and legal content\u201d.<\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – ALJ Vol 99 No 6 Contents<\/a><\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n