Practice and Procedure. Self-executing order - construction - whether further judicial at required for self-executing order to take effect

In Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd v Spencer [2010] QCA 207, a self-executing order had been made in consequence of continuing default by parties to the proceedings in meeting their disclosure obligations. The case involved several questions about the construction and implications of the self-executing order. This note focuses on the aspects of the case relating to that order.

Points of convergence and divergence : normative, institutional and operational relationships between R2P and POC

As an international norm, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has gained substantial influence and institutional presence—and created no small controversy—in the ten years since its first conceptualisation. Conversely, the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (PoC) has a longer pedigree and enjoys a less contested reputation. Yet UN Security Council action in Libya in 2011 has thrown into sharp relief the relationship between the two. UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 follow exactly the process envisaged by R2P in response to imminent atrocity crimes, yet the operative paragraphs of the resolutions themselves invoke only PoC. This article argues that, while the agendas of PoC and R2P converge with respect to Security Council action in cases like Libya, outside this narrow context it is important to keep the two norms distinct. Peacekeepers, humanitarian actors, international lawyers, individual states and regional organisations are required to act differently with respect to the separate agendas and contexts covered by R2P and PoC. While overlap between the two does occur in highly visible cases like Libya, neither R2P nor PoC collapses normatively, institutionally or operationally into the other.

Capacity-building workshops on the responsibility to protect (R2P) and the protection of civilians (POC) in armed conflict - Summary Report

In June 2011, a research project team from the Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law (IEGL), Queensland University of Technology, the United Nations University, and the Australian Government’s Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence (APCMCOE) held three Capacity-Building Workshops (the Workshops) on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the Protection of Civilians (POC) in Armed Conflict in Manila, Kuala Lumpur, and Jakarta. The research project is funded by the Australian Responsibility to Protect Fund, with support from APCMCOE. Developments in Libya and Cote d’Ivoire and the actions of the United Nations Security Council have given new significance to the relationship between R2P and POC, providing impetus to the relevance and application of the POC principle recognised in numerous Security Council resolutions, and the R2P principle, which was recognised by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005 and, now, by the Security Council. The Workshops considered the relationship between R2P and POC. The project team presented the preliminary findings of their study and sought contributions and feedback from Workshop participants. Prior to the Workshops, members of the project team undertook interviews with UN offices and agencies, international organisations (IOs) and non-government organisations (NGOs) in Geneva and New York as part of the process of mapping the relationship between R2P and POC. Initial findings were considered at an Academic-Practitioner Workshop held at the University of Sydney in November 2010. In addition to an extensive literature review and a series of academic publications, the project team is preparing a practical guidance text (the Guide) on the relationship between R2P and POC to assist the United Nations, governments, regional bodies, IOs and NGOs in considering and applying appropriate protection strategies. It is intended that the Guide be presented to the United Nations Secretariat in New York in early 2012. The primary aim of the Workshops was to test the project’s initial findings among an audience of diplomats, military, police, civilian policy-makers, practitioners, researchers and experts from within the region. Through dialogue and discussion, the project team gathered feedback – comments, questions, critique and suggestions – to help shape the development of practical guidance about when, how and by whom R2P and POC might be implemented.

The nature of juristic paradigms : exploring the theoretical and conceptual relationship between adversarialism and therapeutic jurisprudence

Problem solving courts appear to achieve outcomes which are not common in mainstream courts. There are increasing calls for the adoption of more “therapeutic” and “problem solving” practices by mainstream judges in civil and criminal courts in a number of jurisdictions, most notably in the United States and Australia. Currently, a judge who sets out to exercise a significant therapeutic function is quite likely to be doing so in a specialist court or jurisdiction, outside the mainstream court system, and, arguably, from outside the adversarial paradigm itself. To some extent, his work is tolerated but marginalized. But do therapeutic and problem solving functions have the potential to define, rather than complement, the role of judicial officers? The basic question addressed in this paper is, therefore, whether the judicial role could evolve to be not just less adversarial, but fundamentally non-adversarial. In other words, could we see--or are we seeing--a paradigm shift not just in the colloquial, casual sense of the word, but in the strong, worldview changing sense meant by Thomas Kuhn?

Review of "Violence, Prejudice and Sexuality" by Stephen Tomsen (Routledge, New York and London, 2009)

Tomsen’s book Violence, Prejudice and Sexuality engages with important questions about sexuality and anti homosexual sentiment that criminologists have grappled with for some time. Tomsen’s work refines these questions in the context of essentialism, and notes how this concept has enabled only very specific ways of thinking about and analysing violence, prejudice, and sexuality. Indeed, thinking about the nexus between these three concepts are now almost taken for granted. As Tomsen demonstrates in his discussion of historical understandings of sexual desire, although social constructionism and queer perspectives have challenged essentialist notions of sexuality, research has in many respects upheld a binary understanding of heterosexuality as normal and homosexuality as abnormal. Interestingly, essentialist binaries like this have been conveniently employed in more recent times when activists align with minority status to gain basic human rights. While no one could deny the importance of access to rights and justice, Tomsen notes the danger inherent in arguments like this that draw on essentialism. He argues we are working through similar dichotomies of heterosexuality as normal and homosexuality as abnormal set up in very early research on sexual desire. The key difference now is that, in the rush towards public and political citizenship, ‘heterosexuals are recast as “perpetrators” and homosexuals as “victims”’ (Tomsen 2009: 16). Violence, Prejudice and Sexuality importantly notes this is no less an essentialist dichotomy and no less divisive....

The younger audience : children and broadcasting in New Zealand

The role and influence of media in the lives of children are ongoing sources of public, political and academic debates. These debates move back and forth along a care-control continuum (Cohen, 1997), and reflect a commitment both to educate children and to regulate their media experiences. Rapid advancements in computer technologies have vastly expanded the range of media experiences available to children. The development of Internet information and the rapid expansion of channels as a result of digital television have created increasingly accessible and diverse sources of media for children. These media are instantaneous and, in some circumstances, constantly available. As a result, a substantial body of international research has emerged that examines the influence of media consumption on children. How much time do children spend interacting with media? What sorts of media do they access? Are media harmful or beneficial to children? If so, in which contexts? Do media influence children�s personal development? And what role should governments, broadcasters and independent producers play in the regulation of the media? These questions remain central to contemporary debates about children and the media.

Evaluation of the Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court Pilot

A pilot Youth Court was introduced at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. Its objectives were to: • reduce the frequency and seriousness of re-offending by 16 and 17 year old offenders, particularly persistent offenders (and some 15 year olds who are referred to the court); • promote the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of these young offenders while maximising their potential; • establish fast track procedures for those young persons appearing before the Youth Court; • enhance community safety, by reducing the harm caused to individual victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime; and • test the viability and usefulness of a Youth Court using existing legislation and to demonstrate whether legislative and practical improvements might be appropriate. An evaluation of the pilot commissioned by the Scottish Executive found that it appeared in many respects to be working well. It was a tightly run court that dealt with a heavy volume of business. With its fast track procedures and additional resources it was regarded as a model to be aspired to in all summary court business. Whether a dedicated Youth Court was required or whether procedural improvements would have been possible in the absence of dedicated resources and personnel was, however, more difficult to assess. Two issues in particular required further attention. First, consideration needed to be given to whether the Youth Court should be more explicitly youth focused and what this might entail. Second, greater clarity was required regarding for whom the Youth Court was intended to avoid the risk of net-widening and its consequences for young people.

Evaluation of the Hamilton Youth Court Pilot 2003-2005

Pilot Youth Courts were introduced at Hamilton Sheriff Court in June 2003 and at Airdrie Sheriff Court in June 2004. Although introduced as one of a number of measures aimed at responding more effectively to youth crime (including young people dealt with through the Children’s Hearings System), the Youth Courts were intended for young people who would otherwise have been dealt with in the adult Sheriff Summary Court. The objectives of the pilot Youth Courts were to: • reduce the frequency and seriousness of re-offending by 16 and 17 year old offenders, particularly persistent offenders (and some 15 year olds who are referred to the court); • promote the social inclusion, citizenship and personal responsibility of these young offenders while maximising their potential; • establish fast track procedures for those young persons appearing before the Youth Court; • enhance community safety, by reducing the harm caused to individual victims of crime and providing respite to those communities which are experiencing high levels of crime; and • test the viability and usefulness of a Youth Court using existing legislation and to demonstrate whether legislative and practical improvements might be appropriate. Evaluation of the Hamilton and Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court pilots suggested that they had been successful in meeting the objectives set for them by the Youth Court Feasibility Group. Both were tightly run courts that dealt with a heavy volume of business. The particular strengths of the Youth Court model over previous arrangements included the fast-tracking of young people to and through the court, the reduction in trials, the availability of a wider range of resources and services for young people and ongoing judicial review. The successful operation of the pilot Youth Courts was dependent upon effective teamwork among the relevant agencies and professionals concerned. Good information sharing, liaison and communication appeared to exist across agencies and the procedures that were in place to facilitate the sharing of information seemed to be working well. This was also facilitated by the presence of dedicated staff within agencies, resulting in clear channels of communication, and in the opportunity provided by the multi-agency Implementation Groups to identify and address operational issues on an ongoing basis. However, whether Youth Courts are required in Scotland or whether procedural improvement were possible in the absence of dedicated resources and personnel was more difficult to assess. Two issues in particular required further attention. First, consideration needed to be given to whether the Youth Courts should be more explicitly youth focused and what this might entail. Second, greater clarity was required regarding for whom the Youth Courts were intended. This suggested the need for further discussion of Youth Court targeting and its potential consequences among the various agencies concerned.

Power in legal education : a (new) critical and analytical approach

This article explores power within legal education scholarship. It suggests that power relations are not effectively reflected on within this scholarship, and it provokes legal educators to consider power more explicitly and effectively. It then outlines in-depth a conceptual and methodological approach based on Michel Foucault’s concept of ‘governmentality’ to assist in such an analysis. By detailing the conceptual moves required in order to research power in legal education more effectively, this article seeks to stimulate new reflection and thought about the practice and scholarship of legal education, and allow for political interventions to become more ethically sensitive and potentially more effective.

The four principles: Can they be measured and do they predict ethical decision making?

Background The four principles of Beauchamp and Childress - autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice - have been extremely influential in the field of medical ethics, and are fundamental for understanding the current approach to ethical assessment in health care. This study tests whether these principles can be quantitatively measured on an individual level, and then subsequently if they are used in the decision making process when individuals are faced with ethical dilemmas. Methods The Analytic Hierarchy Process was used as a tool for the measurement of the principles. Four scenarios, which involved conflicts between the medical ethical principles, were presented to participants and they made judgments about the ethicality of the action in the scenario, and their intentions to act in the same manner if they were in the situation. Results Individual preferences for these medical ethical principles can be measured using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. This technique provides a useful tool in which to highlight individual medical ethical values. On average individuals have a significant preference for non-maleficence over the other principles, however, and perhaps counter-intuitively, this preference does not seem to relate to applied ethical judgements in specific ethical dilemmas. Conclusions People state they value these medical ethical principles but they do not actually seem to use them directly in the decision making process. The reasons for this are explained through the lack of a behavioural model to account for the relevant situational factors not captured by the principles. The limitations of the principles in predicting ethical decision making are discussed.

Web 2.0, social networking and the courts

In the last decade or so, we have witnessed the growth of web 2.0 technology and social networking platforms, and their rapid rise in popularity as methods of social interaction and communication. Yet, platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are not just online social phenomena, but can impact on the way the law and courts operate. This article highlights the issues that legal practitioners and courts need to be aware of in engaging with this technology, and suggests possible ways forward.

Practice and Procedure: Worker's Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s275

In Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v Sayers [2007] QSC 390 Daubney J considered the obligation imposed on a claimant under s 275 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) to provide the insurer with an authority to obtain information and documents. The decision leads to practical results.

Against Marginality: Arguments for a Public Criminology

Despite its accumulated theoretical and empirical heft, the discipline of criminology has had distressingly little impact on the course of public policy toward crime and criminal justice. This article addresses the sources of that troubling marginality, with special emphasis on the powerful disincentives to greater public impact that operate within the discipline itself and the research universities that mainly house it—including the pressure to publish ever more narrow research in peer-reviewed journals at the expense of efforts at synthesis and dissemination that could serve to educate a broader public. Achieving a greater voice in the world outside the discipline will require a concerted move toward a more explicitly public criminology, and seeing to it that the work of such a criminology is more reliably supported and rewarded within the universities and the profession as a whole.

The Roots of Danger: Violent Crime in Global Perspective

Prentice Hall’s Masters Series in Criminology brings the work of true masters to life for a new audience of readers, presenting brief and accessible introductions to crime and criminology topics from some of the leading scholars in criminology today. All authors in the series are true academic pioneers, and each book in the series pulls from the authors’ decades of research and writing in their fields. The first and only series of its kind, Prentice Hall’s Masters Series in Criminology introduces readers to the scholars and issues that are at the core of modern criminology.