Historical evolution and modern implications of concepts of consent to, and refusal of, medical treatment in the law of trespass

Many mischiefs arise on the change of a maxim and rule of the Common Law, which those who altered it could not see when they made the change.

Torts

Third edition of a text for university students providing a basic coverage of the principles of torts law, first published 1997. Covers all aspects of torts law including battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass, negligence and statutory duty. Designed to be used with 'Torts: Cases and Commentary' or with any other torts law casebook. Includes charts, diagrams, references and index. New edition contains recent High Courts decisions that have changed the law of Torts in Australia. Editor is a senior lecturer at the School of Law, Deakin University.

The new law of torts

The New Law of Torts third edition continues to question whether foundational principles and policies of torts law, reflect the social and moral values of modern Australian society. Living up to its name as The New Law of Torts, this book has been up-dated with the latest legislative and judicial development as well as the recent major cases, reflecting the changing nature of tort law.This is an essential and accessible text as it provides a clear and succinct discussion of the interface between the statutory regime in each jurisdiction and the common law. It comprehensively covers the law as it is applicable to the whole of Australia. The book has clearly delineated parts, sections and topics for each genus of torts (trespass, action on the case, statutory wrongs, etc.), and each species (battery, assault, negligence, nuisance). Headings and sub-headings provide useful breaks in the text, and selected cases are used not only as authorities, but also as illustrations of principle and judicial reasoning.

Singh v The Queen: A Path Toward Confusion, Redundancy and Doctrinal Inconsistency

In Walkington v The Queen, the English Court of Criminal Appeal enunciated criteria fordetermining whether a building contains parts thereof for purposes of ss 76 and 77 of the CrimesAct 1958 (Vic): burglary and aggravated burglary respectively. In Singh v The Queen, the VictorianCourt of Appeal was confronted with a situation in which a trespassory entry had been made into abuilding that, according to the principles enunciated in Walkington, did not consist of any part orparts. Recognizing that there was scant evidence with which to prove that the accused’s entry hadbeen accompanied by an intention to commit one of the crimes specified in ss 76 and 77, the courtnonetheless affirmed the applicant’s conviction for aggravated burglary under s 77. In so doing,the court reaffirmed its earlier decision in The Queen v Chimirri which held that a trespassoryentry into a building results in continuing trespass for as long as the accused remains in thebuilding. In Chimirri, it was further held that if an accused forms an intention to commit one ofthe specified crimes subsequent to the initial trespassory entry and enters a part of the buildingwith that intention, he or she has committed burglary, aggravated burglary, or both by virtueof the continuing trespass doctrine. The discussion to follow will demonstrate that the court’sreasoning in both Chimirri and Singh is not only flawed, but flies in the face of the very passagesfrom the judgment of Lane LJ in Walkington that were quoted with apparent approval in Singh.The discussion will further demonstrate that the continuing trespass doctrine adds nothing of valueto the law of burglary as it existed prior to Chimirri and Singh; rather, its only effect is to addconfusion and uncertainty to what had been a settled area of the law.