Legal issues: Disciplinary proceedings for inappropriate prescription of opioid medications by medical practitioners in Australia (2010-2014)

An analysis of 32 cases reported between July 2010 and September 2014 byprofessional disciplinary tribunals in New South Wales and Victoria againstmedical practitioners found guilty of inappropriately prescribing Sch 8 medications(mainly opioids) and Sch 4 drugs (mainly benzodiazepines) demonstrated, among others, a lengthy delay between the occurrence of the miscreant conduct and the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The study also raised questions about the appropriateness of utilising common criminal law theories of punishment and deterrence by non-judicial tribunals.

R v Middendorp

This book brings together feminist academics, lawyers and activists to present an impressive collection of alternative judgments in a series of Australian legal cases.

The High Court on crime in 2014: Outcomes and jurisprudence

This article examines the Australian High Court decisions in 2014 which relate to criminal matters. This systematic analysis of all High Court judgments commenced in this Journal in 2010 and is now undertaken annually. The article explains the principles that derive from these cases and identifies jurisprudential themes from the decisions. It also sets outthe significance of the cases and the possible wider consequences of the decisions.

Proportionality in sentencing: the need to factor in community experience, not public opinion

This is the first book to address the question of what role public opinion should play in the way criminal offenders are punished.Should public opinion determine—or even influence—sentencing policy and practice? Should the punishment of criminal offenders reflect what the public regards as appropriate? These deceptively simple questions conceal complex theoretical and methodological challenges to the administration of punishment.In the West, politicians have often answered these questions in the affirmative; penal reforms have been justified with direct reference to the attitudes of the public. This is why the contention that politicians should bridge the gap between the public and criminal justice practice has widespread resonance. Criminal law scholars, for their part, have often been more reluctant to accept public input in penal practice, and some have even held that the idea of consulting public opinion constitutes a populist approach to punishment.The purpose of this book is to examine the moral significance of public opinion for penal theory and practice. For the first time in a single volume the editors, Jesper Ryberg and Julian V. Roberts, have assembled a number of respected criminologists, philosphers, and legal theorists to address the various aspects of why and how public opinion should be reflected in the way the criminal justice system deals with criminals. The chapters address the myriad complexities surrounding this issue by first weighing the justifications for incorporating public views into punishment practices and then considering the various ways this might be achieved through juries, prosecutors, restoratifve justice programs, and other means.

Mandatory jury directions in sexual assault trials in Victoria: less a model than a cautionary tale?

 Jury directions in relation to the issue of consent in trials of sexual offence cases are mandated in two jurisdictions in Australia (Victoria and the Northern Territory). The Australian Law Reform Commission, in conjunction with the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, has recommended that provisions similar to those in Victoria should be contained in relevant legislation in all States and Territories. However, a recent series of cases in Victoria has revealed significant problems in relation to the mandatory jury directions. These difficulties have generated increasingly elaborate and complex directions. The complexity of these directions not only presents considerable challenges for judges but also may overwhelm, rather than assist, members of the jury. The Court of Appeal of Victoria has called for “urgent and wholesale reform”. In the light of these concerns, it is suggested that the Victorian mandatory directions do not provide a model for other jurisdictions. Rather, the Victorian experience can be seen as a cautionary tale of the problems and pitfalls of such directions. Recently, the Victorian government has passed the Jury Directions Act 2013. This Act sets out “guiding principles” that should determine the content, and use, of jury directions. These guiding principles should form the basis for any jury directions with respect to sexual offences.

Retrials of persons acquitted of indictable offences in England and Australia: exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy

Jury directions in relation to the issue of consent in trials of sexual offence cases are mandated in two jurisdictions in Australia (Victoria and the Northern Territory). The Australian Law Reform Commission, in conjunction with the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, has recommended that provisions similar to those in Victoria should be contained in relevant legislation in all States and Territories. However, a recent series of cases in Victoria has revealed significant problems in relation to the mandatory jury directions. These difficulties have generated increasingly elaborate and complex directions. The complexity of these directions not only presents considerable challenges for judges but also may overwhelm, rather than assist, members of the jury. The Court of Appeal of Victoria has called for "urgent and wholesale reform". In the light of these concerns, it is suggested that the Victorian mandatory directions do not provide a model for other jurisdictions. Rather, the Victorian experience can be seen as a cautionary tale of the problems and pitfalls of such directions. Recently, the Victorian government has passed the Jury Directions Act 2013. This Act sets out "guiding principles" that should determine the content, and use, of jury directions. These guiding principles should form the basis for any jury directions with respect to sexual offences.

Is a 24 hour ban such a bad thing?

A key element in Australian policing in recent years is the growth of police-imposed discretionary summary justice. The rise and impact of on-the-spot fines, infringement notices, exclusion orders and move-on powers enable police-initiated resolutions and punishments to be imposed, often without legal or judicial intervention. These operational policing mechanisms reflect underlying pressures to reduce costs, ease the burden on the court system, and speed up the decision-making process, but when viewed from a human rights perspective the potential consequences are significant. Focusing on the legislative development of banning notices in Victoria, this article highlights the impact of such a police-imposed punishment upon individual due process procedural protections. Banning notices deny the recipient the right to conduct a defence, undermine the presumption of innocence, and conflate notions of pre-emption and punishment. The rhetoric upon which the banning notice legislation is predicated obviates meaningful scrutiny of the diminution of individual rights that are implicit in its enactment. A perceived ‘need’ to control disorder and ‘re-balance’ justice to prioritise community protection is used to legitimise any consequential impact upon the principles of criminal law, due process and human rights.

Sex, culpability, and the defence of provocation

The partial defence of provocation is one of the most controversial doctrines within the criminal law. It has now been abolished in a number of international jurisdictions. Addressing the trajectory of debates about reform of the provocation defence across different jurisdictions, Sex, Culpability and the Defence of Provocation considers the construction and representation of subjectivity and sexual difference in legal narrations of intimate partner homicide. Undeniably, the most vexing exculpatory cultural narrative of our times is that of a woman 'asking for it'. This book explores how the process of judgment in a criminal trial involves not only the drawing of inferences from the facts of a particular case, but also operates to deliver a narrative. Law, it is argued, constructs a narrative of how the female body incites male violence. And, pursuing an approach that is informed by socio-legal studies, literary theory and feminist theories of the body, Sex, Culpability and the Defence of Provocation considers how this narrative is constructed via a range of discursive practices that position woman as a threat to masculine norms of propriety and autonomy. Once we have a clear understanding of the significance of narrative in legal decision-making, we can then formulate textual strategies of resistance to the violence of law's victim-blaming narratives by rewriting them.

Criminalising economic and emotional abuse and intimidation: the Tasmanian experience

In 2004 the parliament of Tasmania enacted two new offences in the context of family violence; the first was intended to prohibit economic abuse, and the second sought to prohibit emotional abuse or intimidation. The introduction of these novel provisions constituted a movement away from conceptions of family violence that rely solely upon physical acts and, instead, treated the infliction of psychological harm as a core feature of family violence. The offences have, however, only rarely been prosecuted. This article analyses the offences, identifying difficulties in their construction and exploring the reasons why they have had such little impact. Despite the rarity of prosecutions, the new offences are significant, for they challenge traditional conceptions of the criminal law that rely on the criminalisation of causing, or threatening, physical harm. Consequently, and in the context of recent legislation in England and Wales criminalising controlling or coercive behaviour, a review of the offences that have been operating in Tasmania for more than a decade is timely.

Privacy, dataveillance, and crime prevention

Whether privacy is an adequate legal safeguard against intrusive government or private sector activity remains open for further exploration. The criminal law has always imposed limits on the ability of police to enter private premises and seize property associated with criminal activity, while preserving the rights of “mass private” property owners and their agents to selectively exclude people from entering or remaining on their premises. The appropriate balance between these issues and “the right to be let alone” is often determined by judicial rulings in individual cases. However, the balance between a claimant’s personal rights to be free from undue surveillance and the broader public interest in preventing crime or promoting safety is not always clear. New forms of personal data collection and dissemination through ICTs reconfigure the balance between private and public knowledge (Australian Law Reform Commission 2008), while social network analysis is increasingly deployed by law enforcement agencies to detect and prevent crime. Our ongoing research interrogates how the concept of privacy can be reconciled with the growing use of dataveillance, data mining, and social network analysis to prevent crime and antisocial behavior.

Criminalising controlling and coercive behaviour: the next step in the prosecution of family violence?

A new offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate or family relationships has recently come into force in England. The parliament of Scotland is contemplating introducing a related offence. The offence is distinctive because it criminalises conduct – controlling and coercive behaviour – which has specified negative behavioural and psychological consequences without necessarily requiring that a victim sustain physical injury or fear death or serious harm. This significant extension of the criminal law supplements anti-stalking legislation and has been justified on the basis that it addresses a core feature of abusive relationships, is essential to protect the human rights of victims of domestic abuse, and has community support. In the context of the ongoing debate about how best to tackle the problem of domestic abuse in Australia, this development provides an innovative – albeit still untested – model and should be closely examined.

The disparity between human rights policy and parliamentary practice in Australia : a Victorian case study

Over the past decade alcohol-related violence in and around licensed premises has given rise to significant legislative, regulatory and operational policing developments. In Australia, the State of Victoria introduced police-imposed banning notices as part of a range of provisions and new powers targeting alcohol-related disorderly behaviour. Banning notices exemplify a broader shift towards discretionary, pre-emptive, regulatory, summary justice which circumvents the criminal law, dilutes individual rights, and reconfigures expectations of balance in the administration of justice. The legal principles upon which banning notices are based and the way in which they were enacted by the Victorian Parliament challenge both the purpose and specific requirements of Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Detailed analysis of the application of the Charter compliance processes to the banning notice provisions point to a notable disparity between the expectations of formal human rights policy and the reality of substantive practice. The broader effect of such a disconnect is potentially significant, but has been largely opaque to meaningful scrutiny.