The disunity of employment law and sentencing

This article discusses the lack of integration between criminal sanctions and employment deprivations (in the form of being dismissed from employment or disqualified from working in certain industries). Offenders who are employed in certain industries, especially the professions, often suffer a far greater net punishment upon being found guilty of a criminal offence than other offenders, thereby violating the principle of proportionality and the (related) principle of equality in the impact of sanctions. The reason that such a situation has developed is because criminal sanctions and employment deprivations have evolved from different streams of jurisprudence. This article argues that sentencers should impose a ‘net’ sanction for a criminal offence, thereby merging these streams of jurisprudence. This would require courts to be vested with the power to suspend or disqualify people from being employed in certain occupations. The legal analysis in this article focuses on case and statutory law in Australia, however, the same broad principles apply in all common law jurisdictions, including the UK. Hence, the reform proposals suggested in this article are relevant throughout the common law world.

Re Alex: adolescent gender identity disorder and the family court of Australia

'People with gender identity disorder live with a conviction that their physical anatomy is incompatible with their true gender role. They have an overwhelming desire to live and function in the opposite biological sex' . The manifestation of the disorder in children and adolescents is dominated by secrecy, confusion and shame. The purpose of this article is to promote discussion amongst the legal fraternity of the difficult issues confronting the Family Court of Australia when asked to make decisions with life-altering ramifications for the young and vulnerable.

Capital gains tax in South Africa : lessons from Australia?

In the budget review of23 February 2000, the South African Minister of Finance announced that a capital gains tax ('CGT') would be introduced into South Africa, the anticipated start date at that point being 1 April 2001. Pursuant to Taxation Laws Amendment Act 5 of 2001, a CGT of general operation was introduced into the South African Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 (the 'ITA 1962') through the insertion of the Eighth Schedule¹, read together with s 26A of the Act. Section 26A is the charging provision that states that a person's taxable income included their 'taxable capital gain'. As discussed below, the start date was revised to 1 October 2001.

Ambiguities and inconsistencies in relation to the obligations of proxies under corporations law: a model for reform

This article reconsiders the important question which came to light as a result of the controversial 2002 Coles Myer annual general meeting: do directors that are appointed as proxy have an obligation to vote as directed (and indeed should they)? A recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court, which was subsequently approved on appeal, stands for the proposition that proxy holders are agents of the shareholders that appointed them. However, currently the Corporations Act only requires a Chairman appointed as proxy to vote as directed — not an ordinary director. This article briefly explains the present state of the law in Australia on this issue, and then explores some interesting recent judicial remarks which may suggest that ordinary directors appointed as proxy must vote as directed in order to satisfy their director’s duties (both common law and statutory) to the company. We finally outline a proposed statutory reform initiative which seeks to remove the present uncertainty in the law by introducing a blanket requirement that all proxy holders must vote as directed.

Predatory pricing and the expectation of recoupment in Australia : Boral and the pathways forward

High Court decision, Boral v ACCC in which the Court overturned the decision of the Full Federal Court and held that Boral's strategy of below cost pricing did not contravene s 46 of the Trade Practices Act - suggestion that the test of recoupment be the central test with respect to predatory pricing cases.

Fat and the law: who should take the blame?

The incidence of obesity in both adults and children is rising at a rapid rate in most developed countries, including in Australia. Some obese people are seeking to place the blame for their condition on the fast-food industry, as demonstrated by the recent litigation in the United States brought by two obese plaintiffs against McDonald's. This litigation was unsuccessful, and on existing Australian negligence principles any similar litigation commenced here is likely to suffer the same fate. Principles of personal responsibility, autonomy and free will should prevail to deny a negligence claim. The risk of obesity and concomitant health problems from eating fast food to excess is an obvious risk which the plaintiff should not have ignored and which he or she has voluntarily assumed. It is for the Australian Government, not the courts, to regulate the behaviour of the fast-food industry. The government should take action by requiring all major fast-food chains to label their products with nutritional information, and by imposing restrictions on the advertising of food to children.

Double jeopardy in Australia: the illusion of an absolute protection and the prosecution process as punishment

Outline of the nature and scope of the double jeopardy principle as it operates in the pleas in the bar and the court's discretion to prevent an abuse of the process - rationales advanced in favour of doctrine - some anomalies and implications from the claim that the double jeopardy principle is absolute - some suggestions for reform.

Time to curtail summary dismissal in Australia

It is assumed that the right to summarily dismiss an employee for certain forms of misconduct is a fundamental legal right reposed in employers. It is argued that the scope of this right in Australia is too expansive and should be significantly curtailed. In its current form, the right to summarily dismiss employees offends several widely accepted legal and normative maxims and is incompatible with several behavioural norms. While this paper focuses on Australian summary dismissal law, the doctrinal analysis and the reform suggestions advanced in this paper are of relevance to all market economy jurisdictions. Studies of human well-being show that employment, independent of its wealth-creating aspect, is important to well-being. Matters that are central to a person's well-being should not be taken away readily. This moral prescription is given legal recognition by the legal principle of proportionality, which prescribes that there should be proportion between the punishment and harm caused by the wrongdoing. Moreover, it is not the case that a single impertinent act is defining of a person's character or necessarily evinces a predisposition to behave in a like manner in the future.

Can you seek security for costs in international arbitration in Australia

International arbitrations can be conducted under either federal or State legislation in Australia. In both cases complexities arise in the resolution of procedural questions, such as whether security for costs can be granted. There is scant Australian case law on such issues. This article considers whether an arbitral tribunal or a court has the power [*2] to order security for costs in an international arbitration in Australia. After analysing Australia's international arbitration laws and discussing New Zealand and House of Lords' authority, it is argued that unless the parties have specifically empowered the arbitral tribunal to order security for costs, only the relevant court has that power, and even that is uncertain.

Legal professional privilege and the foreign lawyer in Australia

Legal professional privilege is very important to lawyers and clients alike. It has evolved within the common law world over a period of centuries. In a domestic Australian context the test to establish what attracts advice privilege has become reasonably well settled. However, the increasingly international character of commerce has revealed new challenges. Is the current test appropriate to determine whether advice given outside Australia by a foreign lawyer is privileged? This article considers that question in detail. After examining the historical development of legal professional privilege, the article discusses Kennedy v Wallace (2004) 208 ALR 424 (at first instance) and Kennedy v Wallace (2004) 142 FeR 185 (on appeal). The article concludes that the current test is both capable and appropriate if properly applied.

The stolen generations- Canada and Australia. The legacy of assimilation

Comparison of issues regarding the policy of Australian and Canadian governments of removing aboriginal children from their families and placing them in institutions - some Canadian claimantThis article provides a comparative overview of issues pertaining to the stolen generation in Canada and Australia. It includes a historical overview of the removal and detaining of aboriginal children in Canada and Australia. As a consequence of the revelations of this past practice, litigation has been undertaken by members of the stolen generations in both Canada and Australia. The article includes a summary of the key cases in Canada and Australia. Unlike in Australia, some Canadian aboriginal claimants have successfully brought actions for compensation against the federal Canadian government for the damages stemming from their experiences in the aboriginal residential schools. In the course of this discussion, the various causes of actions relied upon by the plaintiffs are examined While the plaintiffs in these leading Canadian cases were ultimately successful under at least one of their heads of claim, the approaches in these cases in regard to the Crown's liability for breaching fiduciary duties, the duty of care, and non-delegable duties is inconsistent. Thus even in regard to the Canadian jurisprudence key legal issues pertaining to the Crown's liability for the aboriginal residential school experience continues to be unresolved.

So far no good: the regulatory failure of criminal racial vilification laws in Australia

This article considers the efficacy of the two main legislative models in Australia which make racial vilification a crime. To this end, it considers whether the laws are compatible with the protection and promotion of freedom of speech; whether they sit comfortably within the existing criminal law frameworks; and whether the text of the offences is sufficiently clear and precise. It considers that the current models are fundamentally flawed and ought to be repealed, arguing, instead, for a particular kind of penalty enhancement statute.

The best interests of the child? The stolen generation in Canada and Australia

Key cases in Australia and Canada dealing with litigation undertaken by members of the stolen generations - considers vicarious liability, non-delegable duties and duty of care - while plaintiffs in leading Canadian cases were successful under at least one of their heads of claim, there were inconsistencies - Crown's liability for the Aboriginal residential school experience is unresolved - key Australian decisions where plaintiffs' claims against the Crown for vicarious liability and breaches of duty of care were rejected.