{"id":2899,"date":"2011-10-26T12:06:05","date_gmt":"2011-10-26T01:06:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=2899"},"modified":"2011-10-26T12:06:05","modified_gmt":"2011-10-26T01:06:05","slug":"australian-law-journal-update-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2011\/10\/26\/australian-law-journal-update-november-2011\/","title":{"rendered":"Australian Law Journal update: November 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"

The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Australian Law Journal<\/em> (Volume\u00c2\u00a085 Part 11) contains the following material:<\/p>\n

Articles<\/h3>\n

The Northern Territory: A celebration of constitutional history<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong>Chief Justice Robert French<\/p>\n

The year 2011 marks the centenary of the establishment of the Northern Territory as a Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia and the creation of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. In the past century, the Northern Territory has been the site of significant constitutional, political and social questions, particularly concerning Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s indigenous population. Justice Martin Kriewaldt, in whose honour this lecture was delivered, made an important contribution to the recognition of cultural difference not only in the Territory but in Australia more broadly. This lecture reflects upon the constitutional history of the Northern Territory.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Truth and the law<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong>Hon J J Spigelman AC<\/p>\n

There are three views about the relationship between truth and the adversarial system. First that the system is not concerned with the truth at all but with \u00e2\u20ac\u0153procedural truth\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. Secondly, that the system is the most effective mechanism for the discovery of the truth. Thirdly, that the system seek the truth subject to qualifications. This article supports the third view. It discusses the restrictions on truth finding that arise by reason of the application of a variety of legal rules. The article compares common law and civil law systems and sets out the way in which the latter contain comparable restrictions on truth finding. Psychological research indicates both the frailty and fungibility of human memory and, accordingly, the process of establishing the truth must be approached with humility.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Griffiths and the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153spike\u00e2\u20ac\u009d: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Rarity\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153restraint\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in Crown sentencing appeals re-assessed<\/em><\/strong><\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong>Steven Thomson<\/p>\n

This article argues that the touchstone for \u00e2\u20ac\u0153rarity\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153restraint\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in Crown sentencing appeals, the High Court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s judgment of Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293, needs to be fundamentally reconsidered in light of a sudden \u00e2\u20ac\u0153spike\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in Crown appeals in New South Wales in 1974-1976. In addition, it can be argued from first principles that principle\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, particularly when sentencing today involves the application of far more complex sentencing statutes than existed in the 1970s. The danger to the judiciary of failing to fundamentally re-assess the proper theoretical approach to Crown sentencing appeals is that Parliaments may extend their recent reforms in the area and restrict judicial sentencing discretion even further.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sections<\/h3>\n

CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Mr Justice P W Young AO<\/strong><\/p>\n