When sexual infidelity triggers murder: Examining the impact of homicide law reform on judicial attitudes in sentencing

In October 2010, the UK Parliament brought into effect law that replaced the partial defence to murder of provocation with a new partial defence of ‘loss of control,’ applicable to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although it retained some key features of its controversial predecessor, the new partial defence was in part designed better to address the gendered contexts within which a large number of homicides are committed. In examining the impact of the reforms, we will focus on long-held concerns about the treatment of sexual infidelity as a trigger for loss of control in murder cases. The article undertakes an analysis of English case law to evaluate the way in which sexual infidelity-related evidence has influenced perceptions of a homicide defendant’s culpability, for the purposes of sentencing, both before and after the implementation of reform. The analysis reveals that, in sentencing offenders post reform, the higher courts have failed to follow the spirit of the reforms respecting the substantive law by effecting a corresponding change in sentencing practice.

The discourse of public education: an urban campaign for a local public high school in Melbourne, Victoria

This paper explores the metonymic slippage surrounding the discourse of public education, through observations and interviews with Lawson High School active campaigners in the state of Victoria, Australia. The notion of campaigning for public education has become an ever-present issue on an international scale, and this article aims to contribute qualitative knowledge regarding the key concepts that lobbyists produce and articulate within their meetings concerning public education. Data have been obtained through direct participatory observation within a contextually specific campaigning site, lobbyists' publications and one-on-one interviews with active campaigners. Findings indicate that campaigners present distinct conceptualisations of public education as a discourse and a well-defined model of their school-of-choice.

Feminist challenges to the constraints of law : donning uncomfortable robes?

Legal judgment writing mobilises a process of story-telling, drawing on existing judicial discourses, precedents and practices to create a narrative relevant to the specific case that is articulated by the presiding judge. In the Feminist Judgments projects feminist scholars and activists have sought to challenge and reinterpret legal judgments that have disadvantaged, discriminated against or denied women’s experiences. This paper reflects on the process of writing as a feminist judge in the Australian Project, in an intimate homicide case, R v Middendorp. Drawing on the work of Judith Butler on intelligibility, iterability and the communality of violence and vulnerability, this article argues that feminist judgments necessarily require some uncomfortable compromises with unjust gendered institutions. While ‘donning the robes’ may be an uncomfortable process, a feminist re-articulation of the law’s carceral power serves to unsettle and challenge some aspects of gendered oppression, even though it cannot unsettle the operation of the institution. The article concludes that effective feminist interventions by members of the judiciary may require donning robes that are not entirely comfortable in order to persuade and advocate for change.

The natural death of the Supreme Judicial Commission of Bangladesh and the consequent patronage appointments to the Bench: advocating the establishment of an Independent Judicial Commission

In order to strengthen the constitutional process of appointment of judges in Superior Courts, Bangladesh established a Supreme Judicial Commission in 2008 by promulgating an Ordinance. This Ordinance was neither promulgated in pursuance of any provisions of the Constitution nor by introducing any amendment to the provisions of the Constitution. The recommendations of the Commission were not given binding force on the executive. The power of the executive to accept or reject the candidates recommended by the Supreme Judicial Commission at his pleasure defeated the very objective of establishing the Commission for appointing the most competent and suitable persons as judges of the superior courts in Bangladesh. However, following the general elections held on 29 December 2008, the newly elected Government of Bangladesh Awami League dispensed with the Supreme Judicial Commission by not placing the Supreme Judicial Commission Ordinance before the parliament for its approval. This resulted in restoring the previous system of appointing judges on the satisfaction of the executive, which has resulted in patronage appointments. Thus, the establishment of an independent judicial commission in Bangladesh is an imperative necessity for strengthening the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.

The establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission in Malaysia to improve the constitutional method of appointing the judges of the superior courts : a critical study

The Judicial Appointments Commission was established in Malaysia in 2009 to ensure unbiased selection of judicial candidates for the consideration of the Prime Minister, who has the final say regarding the appointment of judges to the superior courts. But the provisions concerning Prime Minister’s power to appoint the majority of the members of the Commission and his unfettered power of removing four of the five appointed members without assigning any reason, have calculatedly been devised for ensuring the selection of judicial candidates having right political patronage in accordance with the covert wishes of the Prime Minister. Furthermore, the Prime Minister’s power of rejecting the Commission’s recommendations of multiple candidates renders the undertaking of a lengthy process of selection unproductive and useless. Thus the Judicial Appointments Commission has become a superfluous body with an ineffective modus operandi to attain the stipulated objectives of improving and complementing the constitutional method of appointing judges to the superior courts. Since the Federal Constitution of Malaysia has not empowered the Parliament to enact a law providing for the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission, it also appears that the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 is an invalid piece of legislation.

Response to Islamophobia in the Arabic Islamic discourse: a critical discourse analysis

In the aftermath of September 11, Muslim scholars made numerous attempts to explain Islamophobia from the Islamic perspective; they presented arguments that are not addressed in the Western narrative. Two texts in Arabic by the prominent Muslim preacher, Mohammad Hassan and by the Muslim orator Fadhel Sliman are analysed from a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) viewpoint. This analysis aims to demonstrate how language is inextricably linked with ideology. This paper demonstrates that textual strategies in the Arabic Islamic discourse and their ideological implications show distinct characteristics some of which add to the present literature on discourse. The aim of the chosen texts is to educate and create solidarity between the speakers and the audience in fighting Islamophobia. The reliance of the speakers on tactics such as quoting from the Holy Qur’ān and ḥadīth to defend Islam, and choice of words and sentence structures may instigate discussions about the persuasive power of the Arabic Islamic narrative.

Neoconservatism as discourse: virtue, power and US foreign policy

Neoconservatism in US foreign policy is a hotly contested subject, yet most scholars broadly agree on what it is and where it comes from. From a consensus that it first emerged around the 1960s, these scholars view neoconservatism through what we call the ‘3Ps’ approach, defining it as a particular group of people (‘neocons’), an array of foreign policy preferences and/or an ideological commitment to a set of principles. While descriptively intuitive, this approach reifies neoconservatism in terms of its specific and often static ‘symptoms’ rather than its dynamic constitutions. These reifications may reveal what is emblematic of neoconservatism in its particular historical and political context, but they fail to offer deeper insights into what is constitutive of neoconservatism. Addressing this neglected question, this article dislodges neoconservatism from itsperceived home in the ‘3Ps’ and ontologically redefines it as a discourse. Adopting aFoucauldian approach of archaeological and genealogical discourse analysis, we trace itsdiscursive formations primarily to two powerful and historically enduring discourses ofthe American self — virtue and power — and illustrate how these discourses produce aparticular type of discursive fusion that is ‘neoconservatism’. We argue that to betterappreciate its continued effect on contemporary and future US foreign policy, we needto pay close attention to those seemingly innocuous yet deeply embedded discoursesabout the US and its place in the world, as well as to the people, policies and principlesconventionally associated with neoconservatism.

Cross-border insolvency law and multinational enterprise groups: judicial Innovation as an international solution

The Article argues that courts confronting the effects of multinational enterprise insolvency must undertake a pragmatic incursion into the separate entity doctrine. This argument is premised on gaps in the current Model Law which confers significant discretion on the courts. Our research shows that courts have fashioned innovative solutions to fill the gaps and thatgreater recognition of the legitimacy of these judicial incursions into the separate entity doctrine would facilitate the reduction of transaction costs in the case of multinational group insolvencies. We identify criteriawhereby a court would be able to determine that the inherentseparateness of the corporate structure should be disregarded andthe group regarded as one.