‘Till death do us part : judging the men who kill their intimate partners

This paper examines the construction of masculinity in judge’s sentencing remarks across seventeen cases of male perpetrated intimate femicide sentenced between March 2005 and May 2007 in the Victorian Supreme Court. Using a narrative analysis of sentencing transcripts it investigates how ideal understandings of hegemonic masculinity are used in judicial decision making to condemn or sympathise with male offenders of intimate femicide. The findings illustrate the profound influence that traditional understandings of masculinity and fatherhood still have on current sentencing practises despite the current climate of homicide law reform both within Australia and overseas. Whilst this paper did not directly assess the impact of recent homicide law reforms, specifically provocation, it is explicitly concerned with the continued influence of gender norms and bias at the sentencing stage of the legal process. As such, it provides a preliminary illustration of the key role that judges play in advocating or rejecting change within the criminal justice system, and more broadly legitimising attitudes about male violence against women throughout society. In condoning the use of extreme violence, in any context, judges send a message to society that such behaviour is either generally or specifically acceptable and accommodated within a legal framework.

The novel as social satire: 60 years later, the wind done gone and the limitations of fair use

The absence of the doctrine of fair use from Australian copyright law has been a bone of contention in Australia after the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA). As the Australian government reformed the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) in the aftermath of the FTA it eschewed the option of adopting fair use. Instead, Australia chose to incorporate a version of fair use into its existing fair dealing framework. Accordingly, the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) inserted ss 41A and 103AA into the Copyright Act. These provisions provide that a fair dealing with a copyright protected work does not constitute an infringement if it is done for the purposes of parody or satire. These provisions codify part of the ratio of the United States Supreme Court in the seminal case of Campbell v Acuff Rose Music. However, the parameters of these new provisions are unexplored and the sparse nature of fair dealing jurisprudence means that the true meaning of the provisions is unclear. Moreover, two cases from the United States, SunTrust Bank v Houghton Mifflin and Salinger v Colting, underline just how important it is to have legal rules that protect literary ‘re-writes’. Both cases involved authors using an original novel to ‘write back’ to the original author and the broader culture. ‘Writing back’ or the ‘re-write’ has a firm basis in literature. It adds something invaluable to our culture. The key question is whether our legal landscape can allow it to flourish. This paper examines the interaction between fair use and literary re-writes.

How does the cookie crumble? legal costs under a uniform interpretation of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods

A family owned Mexican company, Zapata Hermanos Sucesores, S.A. ("Zapata"), sold approximately US$950,000 worth of cookie tins over a period of four years to the Maurice Lenell Cooky Company ("Lenell"), an American company that produced baked goods. Lenell failed to pay Zapata for the cookie tins so Zapata sought legal advice and instituted legal proceedings against Lenell for breach of contract in the Federal District Court of Illinios. The cookie tin sale contracts were governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ("CISG"). Zapata succeeded in its Federal District Court claim and, as part of the Court's order, was awarded US$550,000 as foreseeable loss under Article 74 of the CISG, being the amount of legal fees incurred by Zapata in bringing proceedings against Lenell. On appeal to the Federal Appellate Court, however, the award of legal fees was overturned. The parties now find themselves contesting a leave application to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in a much anticipated debate over who should pay the lawyers.

The South African Doctrine of Notice: a comparative law perspective

The doctrine of notice was received into South African law in Cohen v Shires, Mchattie and King (1881-1884) 1 SAR TS 41 by reference to a 17th century Dutch decision and English equity.The reception of the polar star of equity has led to doctrinal problems and differing views as to requirements for the operation of the doctrine ever since. This is illustrated in the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Meridian Bay Restaurant (Pty) Ltd v Mitchell 2011 (4) SA 1 (SCA). The Court mentioned fraud and equity as the doctrinal basis but also accepted the view that the doctrine is an anomaly which does not fit into the principles of either the law of delict or property law.The Court required actual notice (or dolus eventualis) and wrongfulness for the operation of the doctrine of notice. In the following discussion of the decision it is argued that for the operation of the doctrine it should be required that: (a) a prior personal right aimed at the acquisition of a real right existed; (b) a holder of a subsequent personal right was actually aware or foresaw the possibility of the existence of the prior personal right; and (c) the holder of the real right nonetheless infringed upon the prior personal right by concluding a subsequent contract and obtaining registration of the real right in the deeds office.

Australian security of payment legislation: impact of inconsistent case law

In Australia, a supreme court has a supervisory role over the statutory adjudication process that has been established within the security of payment legislation. In this role, the courts have quashed many adjudication determinations on the grounds of jurisdictional error in recent years. This is a problem as the courts’ involvement in statutory adjudication is contrary to the object of the legislation. When reviewing adjudication determinations, the courts have adopted different approaches with respect to determining the role of adjudicators and the essential jurisdictional facts that must exist in order for an adjudicator to have jurisdiction to hear a referred disputed matter. This diversification of judicial interpretation with respect to jurisdictional error is confusing, not only to construction professionals, but also to many lawyers. Via a desktop study– where the evidence is mainly garnered from case law, governmental reports and commentaries – this paper reviews the legal complexities involved in diagnosing jurisdictional errors. In doing so, the paper aims to answer the question as to why the adjudication process has become bogged down in the quagmire of judicial review. The paper concludes that the evolving inconsistency of case law in relation to statutory adjudication is a crucial factor contributing to the erosion of the object of the security of payment legislation in Australia. Moving forward, the paper argues that establishing a legislative review mechanism of jurisdictional challenges may be sufficient to address this problem.

Human rights in Papua New Guinea: is this where we should be settling refugees?

Australia has had a long, and at times tumultuous, relationship with our nearest neighbour, Papua New Guinea. This relationship took a twist in late 2012, with the re-opening of the off-shore processing centre on Manus Island, and again in February 2014, when Iranian asylum seeker Reza Berati was murdered by locals during a violent disturbance at the centre. The latest test of the strength and endurance of the relationship between PNG and Australia came in April 2016, when the PNG Supreme Court ruled that the detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island breached the right to personal liberty in the PNG constitution. This article provides much-needed insight into the human rights situation in PNG, and makes recommendations regarding the prospect of resettling refugees in that country.

Professional issues related to allegations and assessment of child sexual abuse in the context of family court litigation

This article focuses on the challenge of dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse in the context of the Family Court of Australia. Of all cases that come before the Court, those involving such allegations are relatively uncommon. they tend to be the most difficult cases, however, and are more likely to require a trial and the involvement of qualified practitioners. The review establishes that parental separation is a special circumstance in which sexual abuse may be more likely to occur, and many allegations of sexual abuse are found to be true. There is evidence, however, that a proportion of allegations made by people other than the child concerned may be false. Whether these false allegations are well intentioned and genuinely believed, or maliciously motivated has been a contentious issue. Issues considered include the mishandling of cases, the failure by professionals to consider equally plausible alternative hypotheses than the sexual abuse of a child, confirmation bias, and the profound repercussions of allegations for all members of the family. It is concluded that all allegations of child sexual abuse must be evaluated in a thorough and sensitive manner to separate the few false allegations from the many that are true.

Accepted Doctrine at the Time of Federation and Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales

This article critiques one aspect of the High Court’s reasoning in its landmark 2010 decision of Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales, namely its reliance on ‘accepted doctrine at the time of federation’ to determine the ‘defining characteristics’ of the state Supreme Courts. I argue that the relevant passages in Kirk are ambiguous and capable of two alternative readings, which I term the ‘pre-Federation entrenchment theory’ and the ‘on-Federation entrenchment theory’. With extensive reference to primary and secondary materials from the Federation era, I argue that both theories are flawed and, indeed, contrary to accepted doctrine at the time of Federation. Consequently, if the holding in Kirk is to be defended, other justifications for the entrenchment of judicial review in the state jurisdictions, which were only touched upon in Kirk, need to be developed and articulated with greater thoroughness and rigour.