The defence of joint illegal activity must be looked at in context

In Miller v Miller (2011) 85 ALJR 480; [2011] HCA 9 the High Court examined the complex issue of joint illegal activity. The issue before the court was whether a plaintiff who had engaged in an illegal activity with the defendant may claim damages in negligence. In its decision the court analysed the cases of Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA) (1938) 60 CLR 438, Smith v Jenkins (1970) 119 CLR 397, Jackson v Harrison (1978) 138 CLR 438 and Gala v Preston (1991) 172 CLR 243.

The conundrum of phoenix activity: Is further reform necessary?

Phoenix activity presents a conundrum for the law and its regulators. While there is economic cost associated with all phoenix activity, the underlying behaviour is not always illegal. A transaction with indicators of phoenix activity may be an entirely innocent and well-intentioned display of entrepreneurial spirit, albeit one that has ended in failure. Restructuring post business failure is not illegal per se. Recent reforms targeting phoenix activity fail to grapple with the vast range of behaviour that can be described as phoenix activity since they do not differentiate between legal and illegal activity. This article explores the importance of the distinction between legal and illegal phoenix activity, the extent to which the existing law captures a range of behaviour that can be described as illegal phoenix activity and the response of key regulators and governmental bodies to the absence of single law that attempts to define illegal phoenix activity.

Organized crime : policing illegal business entrepreneurialism

Organized crime in the twenty-first century is a knowledge war that poses an incalculable global threat to the world economy and harm to society - the economic and social costs are estimated at upwards of L20 billion a year for the UK alone (SOCA 2006/7). Organized Crime: Policing Illegal Business Entrepreneurialism offers a unique approach to the tackling of this area by exploring how it works through the conceptual framework of a business enterprise. Structured in three parts, the book progresses systematically through key areas and concepts integral to dealing effectively with the myriad contemporary forms of organised crime and provides insights on where, how and when to disrupt and dismantle a criminal business activity through current policing practices and policies. From the initial set up of a crime business through to the long term forecasting for growth and profitability, the authors dissect and analyse the different phases of the business enterprise and propose a 'Knowledge-Managed Policing' (KMP) approach to criminal entrepreneurialism. Combining conceptual and practical issues, this is a must-have reference for all police professionals, policing academics and government policy makers who are interested in a Strategy-led, Intelligence supported, Knowledge-Managed approach to policing illegal business entrepreneurialism.

Managing Work, Hedonism and 'the Borderline' Between the Legal and Illegal Markets: Two Case Studies of Recreational Heavy Drug Users

In the context of cultural and/or differential ‘normalisation’ of certain forms of drug use, this article describes two case-studies of heavy recreational drug users. The daily lives of these users blur the line between the legal and the illegal; their drug trading is generally as a consumer and ‘friend of a friend’ small dealer in the low-level market. In the first case, problems with management of employment, time and financial budgeting are described; in the second case, such management is accomplished. Discussion refers to: differences between the two in relation to resources and vulnerability to risks, and to leisure/pleasure cultures of hedonism. The research agenda should pay more attention to users who seek to maintain a legitimate lifestyle but who develop problems managing work and their drug-related leisure. Understanding the consumer demand and dealing activity of such users is important in trying to develop a fuller understanding of drug markets.

Economic theory informing approaches to phoenix activity in small business: A neo-Schumpeterian analysis

The adequacy and efficiency of existing legal and regulatory frameworks dealing with corporate phoenix activity have been repeatedly called into question over the past two decades through various reviews, inquiries, targeted regulatory operations and the implementation of piecemeal legislative reform. Despite these efforts, phoenix activity does not appear to have abated. While there is no law in Australia that declares ‘phoenix activity’ to be illegal, the behaviour that tends to manifest in phoenix activity can be capable of transgressing a vast array of law, including for example, corporate law, tax law, and employment law. This paper explores the notion that the persistence of phoenix activity despite the sheer extent of this law suggests that the law is not acting as powerfully as it might as a deterrent. Economic theories of entrepreneurship and innovation can to some extent explain why this is the case and also offer a sound basis for the evaluation and reconsideration of the existing law. The challenges facing key regulators are significant. Phoenix activity is not limited to particular corporate demographic: it occurs in SMEs, large companies and in corporate groups. The range of behaviour that can amount to phoenix activity is so broad, that not all phoenix activity is illegal. This paper will consider regulatory approaches to these challenges via analysis of approaches to detection and enforcement of the underlying law capturing illegal phoenix activity. Remedying the mischief of phoenix activity is of practical importance. The benefits include continued confidence in our economy, law that inspires best practice among directors, and law that is articulated in a manner such that penalties act as a sufficient deterrent and the regulatory system is able to detect offenders and bring them to account. Any further reforms must accommodate and tolerate legal phoenix activity, at least to some extent. Even then, phoenix activity pushes tolerance of repeated entrepreneurial failure to its absolute limit. The more limited liability is misused and abused, the stronger the argument to place some restrictions on access to limited liability. This paper proposes that such an approach is a legitimate next step for a robust and mature capitalist economy.