Facts, threats and reds : common law constitutionalism and the rule of law

In a concurring judgment in Thomas v Mowbray, a High Court of Australia case turning on the Constitutional validity of terrorism-related control orders, Callinan J offers a re-evaluation of the Court’s earlier decision in the Australian Communist Party case to curtail executive power. According to Callinan J, factual matters knowable (but not known) at the time of the earlier decision might have given rise to a different outcome. In a dissenting judgment by Kirby J in the same case the Court’s reasoning in the Australian Communist Party case is robustly defended. These contested issues connect with the theoretical dispute between ‘common law constitutionalism’ and ‘constitutional positivism’ analysed by Dyzenhaus in the context of states of emergency where the limits of executive action and the role of supporting facts become particularly salient. They press the question of the status of the rule of law in the international as well as in the municipal sphere.

The nature and scope of rights of removal

The rationale underlying the fixtures and accession presumptions is the need to protect the value of the chattel as well as the need to protect third-party interests. The destruction of the independent legal status of an attached chattel is generally deemed appropriate where the value of the co-mingled asset will be diminished if the chattel retains a separate legal title and this would generate unfairness because third parties have dealt with the co-mingled asset on the basis of its overall value. Rights to remove have evolved under both common law and equity to moderate the scope of these presumptions. Common law will uphold the right of a tenant to remove chattels that have been attached to leased premises during the currency of the lease. Equity on the other hand will uphold the right to remove affixed chattels in circumstances where the enforcement of such an entitlement is consistent with contractual intention and transactional fairness. This article examines the different rights of removal that have evolved under Australian law to date and the emergent statutory framework supporting these rights. It discusses the historical purpose and structural utility of these entitlements within a land framework that supports fixtures presumptions. Rights of removal, whether validated at law or in equity, confer positive entitlements upon the holder to access and remove affixed goods in circumstances where, because of the fixtures and accession presumptions, those goods no longer retain any separate legal status. The capacity of the holder to enforce this right against third parties is illustrative of their distinctive proprietary perspective.

Consent as a Common Law Defence to Non-Sexual Assaults: The Effect of Neal v The Queen

The following discussion is an exposition of the recognised exceptions to the general rule that the law will not sanction the giving of a lawful consent to the application or threat of actual or grievous bodily harm. The discussion will also focus on a series of decisions in the UK and Australia, particularly Neal v The Queen, that have altered the law's approach to these exceptions and, more importantly, now permit a personto give an informed consent to the risk of contracting HIV or any other sexually transmitted diseases, provided there was no intention on the part of the accused to actually infect the other person. The underlying rationale for sanctioning an informed consent to such a risk is that consenting adults should be accorded the utmost autonomy in conductingtheir private affairs, and particularly so in the context of the choices they make regarding their private sexual activities. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the notion of allowing one to lawfully consent to such a risk, it raises an important question as to the current status of the general rule that one cannot generally give an informed consent to the applicationor threat of actual or grievous bodily harm. More succinctly stated, if the law is prepared to allow an informed consent to the risk of contracting a potentially fatal disease, then what remains of what had previously been a well-settled rule that, save for a few well-recognised exceptions, persons were generally prohibited from consenting to the application or threat of actual or grievous bodily harm?

The roots of punitive damages at common law: a longer history

This Article aims to revisit the historical development of the doctrine ofexemplary or punitive damages. Punitive damages are anomalous in that they lie in both tort and crime, a matter that has led to much criticism by modern commentators. Yet, a definitive history of punitive damages does not exist to explain this anomaly. The main contribution of this Article, then, is to begin such a history by way of a meta-narrative. It identifies and links the historically significant moments that led to punitive damages, beginning with the background period of classical Roman law, its renewed reception in Western Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that coincided with the emergence of the English common law,the English statutes of the late thirteenth century, to the court cases of Wilkes v. Wood and Huckle v. Money in the eighteenth century that heralded the "first explicit articulation" of the legal principle of punitive damages. This Article argues that this history is not linear in nature but historically contingent. This is a corrective to present scholarship, which fails to adequately connect or contextualize these historical moments, or over-simplifies this development over time.

Status of tailings dumps : let D5s go working in the past?

It was decided in the De Beers v Ataqua Mining (Pty) Ltd that ''tailings dumps'' created by mining companies before the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 28 of 2002 ("the MPRDA") came into operation are not governed by its provisions because such dumps are not "residue stockpiles" or "residue deposits" for purposes of the MPRDA. Ownership of tailings dumps is determined by the common law principles of accession. Ownership of a movable dump has to be transferred by one of the recognised forms of delivery of movables. Processing of these dumps will, however, still be subject to compliance with South African environmental, health and safety laws in general. It is submitted that mine dumps or tailings dumps created upon the exercise of "old order mining rights" before the commencement of the MPRDA and even after commencement of the MPRDA until eventual termination of the "old order mining rights" are not subject to the extensive, mining, environmental, empowerment provisions of the MPRDA. Termination of "old order mining rights" takes place upon: (i) refusal of an application for conversion of a mining right during (or even after) the period of transition, (ii) conversion into and registration of new order mining rights during (or even after) the period of transition or (iii) termination of unconverted "old order mining rights" on 30 April 2009. To the extent that this decision has made it possible to embark on a shorter and less cumbersome route in the reprocessing and eventual disappearance of most tailings dumps, it is to be welcomed from an economical, environmental, job creation and aesthetic perspective. Proposed amendments to the MPRDA to undo the impact of the De Beers decision should be carefully considered against these mentioned benefits and a possible finding that it may amount to an expropriation without compensation.

Extended supervision or civil commitment for managing the risk of sexual offenders : public safety and individual rights

Since the early 1990’s, there has been a proliferation of legislative initiatives in North America, the United Kingdom, and Australasia that are intended to improve public protection from high risk sexual offenders. These laws include extended supervision of sexual offenders once released from prison and indefinite involuntary civil commitment to secure treatment facilities following the expiration of a prison sentence. The enactment of these laws has sparked intense debate and numerous legal challenges on a variety of issues, including the need to strike a proper balance between public safety and the rights of individual offenders. Recent challenges to Extended Supervision Orders in New Zealand have included the assertion that this approach is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. This article compares the use of Extended Supervision Orders in New Zealand to the use of civil commitment of Sexually Violent Predators in the United States, and particularly in California, which currently confines the largest number of offenders under this type of commitment. It is argued that Extended Supervision is more flexible, less intrusive, less punitive, and less costly than civil commitment. The degree to which it is effective in improving public safety remains an empirical question.

Sacred rules, secular revelations : the conceptions of rights in pre-modern Europe

This paper is an attempt to reflect on the methodological approaches that I bring to ‘reading law’ in my current project on understandings of individual rights in the legal and theological texts of the twelfth- and early thirteenth-century Middle Ages, entitled ‘Sacred Rules, Secular Revelations: The Conceptions of Rights in Pre-Modern Europe’

Ignorance of the law as a defence to rape : the destruction of a maxim

In DPP v Morgan, the House of Lords correctly concluded that an accused who entertained a genuine belief that a woman was consenting to carnal knowledge of her person could not be convicted of the common law crime of rape as such a belief and the requisite mens rea to convict were mutually exclusive of one another. Though England and Wales have resiled from this position by virtue of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, s. 1 (b), which allows for conviction upon proof that the accused did not reasonably believe that the complainant was consenting, the Morgan principle has retained its vitality at common law as well as under the various statutory crimes of rape that exist throughout Australia, most notably the provisions of s. 38 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Despite a long line of Victorian Court of Appeal decisions which have reaffirmed the Morgan principle, the court has construed s. 37AA(b)(ii) of the Act as leaving open the possibility of an acquittal despite the fact that the accused acted with an awareness that one or more factors that are statutorily deemed as negating consent under s. 36(a)-(g) of the Act were operating at the time of his or her sexual penetration; specifically, the court held that the foregoing factors do not necessarily preclude a jury from finding that the accused acted in the genuine belief that the complainant was consenting. This article endeavours to explain how the accused could be aware of such circumstances at the time of penetration, yet still entertain such a belief. The article ultimately concludes that such an anomaly can only be explained through a combination of the poor drafting of s. 37AA(b)(ii) and the court's apparent refusal to follow the longstanding precept that ignorance of the law is never a defence to a crime, ostensibly prompted by its adherence to the cardinal precept that legislation is not to be construed as superfluous.

Australian criminal law in the common law jurisdictions : cases and materials

 Australian Criminal Law in the Common Law Jurisdictions is a clear and comprehensive introduction to the fundamentals of criminal law. Updated throughout to reflect recent cases and legislation, the fourth edition combines clear case extracts with incisive author commentary and discussion.

Shear- free perfect fluids with solenoidal magnetic curvature and a γ-law equation of state

We show that shear-free perfect fluids obeying an equation of state p = (γ − 1)μ are non-rotating or non-expanding under the assumption that the spatial divergence of the magnetic part of the Weyl tensor is zero.

The vacuousness of rights in the euthanasia debate

It has been claimed that the arguments for and against euthanasia have not changed in the last 120 years. Throughout this period, two rights claims have been thought to be central to the debate. The right to autonomy is invoked by many euthanasists as the main argument in support of euthanasia. This is often countered by the claim that euthanasia violates the right to life. This article argues that the relevance of these rights claims to the euthanasia debate has been overstated. More generally, it is argued that the bluntness of the rights claims in the context of the euthanasia debate is illustrative of the fact that the concept of rights is an unsuitable device for resolving moral disputes which involve conflicting rights.

The democratic credentials of statutory bills of rights (and those of a self-styled majoritarian democrat)

This article has two aims. First, it seeks to demonstrate that the democratic credentials of statutory rights instruments are stronger than bills of rights sceptics such as Professors James Allan and Jeremy Waldron realise. It does so by examining the process by which statutory bills of rights are enacted and then provides an account as to why they are adopted that differs from the one offered by Allan and Waldron. This is done to suggest that the reason why a statutory rights instrument is adopted and the process itself has considerable democratic significance. And second, it seeks to assess the democratic credentials of Professor Allan's own critique of statutory bills of rights. The analysis undertaken in this regard reveals that in important respects Allan is anything but the majoritarian democrat that he routinely claims to be.