*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the\u00c2\u00a0Australian Law Journal<\/em> (Volume 90 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n CURRENT ISSUES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO <\/strong><\/p>\n CONVEYANCING AND PROPERTY<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Peter Butt <\/strong><\/p>\n CRIME AND EVIDENCE<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Justice Phillip Priest <\/strong><\/p>\n CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Robert Baxt AO <\/strong><\/p>\n RECENT CASES<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Acting Justice Peter W Young AO <\/strong><\/p>\n Magna Carta and the Executive<\/a><\/em><\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c James Spigelman<\/p>\n In this his third article on Magna Carta, the author makes the point that the real significance of Magna Carta is not its status as a sacred text, but rather its introduction of four themes which were developed over the centuries into basic principles of government. These four themes are identified and their development traced in detail as government by a feudal absolute king was transformed into today\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s democratic system.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n Much ado about nothing: Why accepting an invitation did not make Dyson Heydon AC, QC appear biased<\/a><\/em><\/strong> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/strong><\/em>Louise Floyd<\/p>\n This article analyses the reasons for rejecting the recent apprehended bias application made by unions against Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon \u00e2\u20ac\u201c not for anything he had done in running the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance, nor in writing his 1,700-page interim report, but because of his accepting an extra-curricular invitation to give the Sir Garfield Barwick Address. Apprehended bias requires proof of prejudgment, rather than suspicion of possible private predisposition (which is where the unions failed). Relevantly, the author argues that law schools should emphasise the positive role judges play in society; and that a greater emphasis should be placed on those who send emails to make key points abundantly clear.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n The tyranny of small differences: Culpability gulf between subjective and objective tests for extended joint criminal enterprise in Australia<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Laura Stockdale<\/p>\n At present there is an imbalance in the legal scholarship on extended joint criminal enterprise (EJCE) in Australia. While the subjective test applied in the common law jurisdictions has been widely criticised for extending liability too far, legal scholars have overlooked the objective test in the criminal codes of Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. This article seeks to remedy this situation by comparing the subjective and objective tests for EJCE in detail and evaluating each test by inquiring whether it limits criminal liability to secondary participants who are sufficiently culpable. It argues that only the subjective test limits liability to secondary participants who are sufficiently culpable, as only those participants who have consciously taken the risk that the additional crime will occur are liable for that crime.<\/p>\n To purchase this article, complete the\u00c2\u00a0Individual Article Sale<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0order form and email it to\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Editor: Angelina Gomez <\/strong><\/p>\n For the PDF\u00c2\u00a0version of the table of contents, click here:\u00c2\u00a0ALJ Vol 90 No 1 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Articles<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n