What's instinct got to do with it? A blueprint for a coherent approach to punishing criminals

As a result of the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing, decisions are often based on the intuitive inclinations and sentiments of sentencers, as opposed to binding rules and principles. In particular, insufficient regard is paid to the purposes and objectives that can be achieved through a state-imposed system of punishment. Momentum is gathering for the High Court to revisit the manner in which the sentencing inquiry is undertaken. We believe that the court should use the opportunity to implement fundamental reform in sentencing and direct the sentencing process down a more transparent and forensic path. We suggest that there are seven basic steps that need to be undertaken to achieve enlightened sentencing reform. Ideally this is a role for the legislature. However, given the populist climate in which we live we have little confidence that the legislature will undertake such an exacting task – one which would almost certainly lead to a less severe sentencing regime. The judiciary offers the strongest hope that at least some of these steps will be taken. This article offers a blueprint for how such reform can be implemented. The first step is simply to assume that the institution of state-imposed punishment is justified – this has already been undertaken. The second is to select the theory which best justifies punishing wrongdoers. Thirdly, public opinion must be ignored in developing sentencing principle. Next it must be determined which objectives (such as deterrence and rehabilitation) can be achieved through sentencing. The fifth step involves matching the punishment to the crime. Step six is to critically analyse the foundation, and reassess the relevance, of the hundreds of aggravating and mitigating considerations that presently affect the sentencing calculus. Finally, sentencing law and practice should be subject to ongoing reform to take into account emerging empirical evidence concerning the positive benefits that can be achieved through sentencing.

Emergence of the individual as an international juristic entity: enforcement of International Human Rights

In this article it is contended that state practice, as evidenced in the  declarations of the judiciary and the many treaties and conventions  guaranteeing human rights, reveals a consensus of opinion acknowledging the individual to be an international juristic entity. So extensive is this practice that it could be seen as marking the emergence of a new customary international norm; or at least a general principle of international law, yet to crystallise into a custom; acknowledging the individual as the beneficiary of international rights. This is important for individuals and minority groups because if they possess international rights independently of the State, enforcement of their rights will no longer depend on the interests of the State. Where the State is often the offender of human rights, international law will not effectively confer any real rights unless the individual is so recognised as an international juristic entity.

Just deserts in post-colonial society : problems in the punishment of indigenous offenders.

Revised version of a paper presented to the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Conference, Sydney, 2-3 October 2003 - disproportionate number of indigenous persons in the criminal justice system - the concept of 'just deserts' in regard to indigenous punishment - legislative reforms are needed to empower the judiciary in the sentencing process - must take account of the historical fact of dispossession - destructive effects on indigenous communities.

Intention to create legal relations: the end of presumptions

Traditionally, courts have presumed that commercial parties intend to create legal relations when entering into agreements and that family members do not. Although not without their critics, until recently these twin presumptions appeared immutable. This article examines the trend to reduce the emphasis on these presumptions by some members of the judiciary in the selection of Australian and New Zealand cases and proposes that as a consequence of the High Court's decision in Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95 the intention to create legal relations presumptions should no longer be used in any context. It concludes by considering the implications for this area of law.

Professionals' perceptions of electronically recorded interviews with vulnerable witnesses

This study presents a qualitative evaluation of the Video and Audio Taped Evidence (VATE) process involving vulnerable witnesses, introduced by Victoria Police in 1996. Specifically, this study presents an analysis of individual in-depth interviews with a diverse group of 25 key Victorian stakeholders (police officers, prosecutors, solicitors, defence lawyers, and members of the judiciary). The aim of the interviews was to provide an overview of the stakeholders' perceptions of the VATE system, with particular focus on the usefulness of VATE interviews viewed or used in the stakeholders' practice. The findings revealed unanimous support for electronic recording of witness statements. However, the stakeholders also perceived that the effectiveness of the system was impeded by several factors. These include: (a) frequent absence within the interviews of a coherent account and detail needed to prove the various offences, (b) inability to scrutinise questions asked prior to the VATE interview, (c) lack of feedback regarding how well the VATE system is working, and (d) the recording medium itself which produced statements of poor sound and visual quality. Three broad recommendations arising from the interviews are discussed.

Law-and-order politics, public-opinion polls, and the media

Over the past two decades, considerable political rhetoric has focused on the need to get tough on crime. Justification for this hard-line approach has been the public's apparent concem about rising crime rates and its increasing dissatisfaction with criminal sentencing. In this paper, we consider characteristics both of the measurement of public opinion and of the influences upon public opinion that may contribute to the depiction of a fearful, punitive community. In particular, we identify sources of bias in the methods and contexts of opinion-polling that promote a distorted representation of the discrepancy between community expectations of sentencing and the practices of the judiciary. We argue that the practices of pollsters, politicians, and media combine to create a self-sustaining obstacle to considered community discussion of crime and criminal sentencing.

Towards understanding what Australia’s Muslims really think

Over the past decade, issues concerning Islam and Muslims have featured prominently in public and media discourse. Much of this discourse is stereotypical, anecdotal and often unsubstantiated. Indeed, relative to the extent of comment on Islam and Muslims, few factual data exist on what Muslims really think. This article presents the views and opinions of the Queensland Muslim community based on the findings of a survey conducted at the 2009 Muslim Eid Festival in Brisbane. The findings of this research contradict many of the assumptions made about Australia’s Muslims concerning their views and opinions on a range of social and political issues. The research shows that Muslims highly value Australia’s key social and political institutions, including its democracy, judiciary, education and health-care systems. However, Muslims do express a lack of trust in certain institutions, namely the mass media. Also, consistent with the views of people globally, Muslims are deeply concerned about conflicts in the Middle East as well as the environmental crisis. This article suggests the need for a shift in public discourse to more accurately reflect the commonality, rather than incongruity, between Muslim views, opinions and concerns and those of the wider society.

The digital pillory: media shaming of 'ordinary' people for minor crimes

This paper discusses the intensified role of the media in shaming ‘ordinary' people when they commit minor offences. We argue that shaming is a powerful cultural practice assumed by the news media in western societies after it was all but phased out as a formal punishment imposed by the judiciary during the early nineteenth century. While shaming is no longer a physically brutal practice, we reconceptualize the idea of a ‘lasting mark of shame' at the hands of the media in the digital age. We argue that this form of shaming should be considered through a lens of media power to highlight its symbolic and disciplinary dimensions. We also discuss the role new and traditional media forms play in shaming alongside formal punishments imposed by the judiciary. While ‘ordinary' people armed with digital tools increase the degree of disciplinary surveillance in wider social space, traditional news media continue to play a particularly powerful role in shaming because of their symbolic power to contextualize information generated in social and new media circles and their privileged position to other fields of power.

Critically impaired infants and end of life decision making : resource allocation and difficult decisions

Decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment are contentious, and offer difficult moral dilemmas to both medical practitioners and the judiciary. This issue is exacerbated when the patient is unable to exercise autonomy and is entirely dependent on the will of others.This book focuses on the legal and ethical complexities surrounding end of life decisions for critically impaired and extremely premature infants. Neera Bhatia explores decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment from critically impaired infants and addresses the controversial question, which lives are too expensive to treat? Bringing to bear such key issues as clinical guidance, public awareness, and resource allocation, the book provides a rational approach to end of life decision making, where decisions to withdraw or withhold treatment may trump other competing interests.The book will be of great interest and use to scholars and students of bioethics, medical law, and medical practitioners.

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.

Examining the approaches to diminish judicial intervention in statutory adjudication in Australia

In Australia, statutory construction adjudication is a fast payment dispute resolution process designed to keep the cash flowing down the hierarchical contractual chain in construction projects. Its rapid, highly regulatory and temporarily binding nature have led to it being often described as a ‘quick and dirty’ process that delivers ‘rough and ready’ justice. Adjudicators often have to grapple with complex legal issues related to jurisdictional facts and interpretation of contract provisions, though the majority of them are not legally trained. This has often led to a poor quality of adjudication outcome for large and complex payment claims which has, in turn, led to a mounting dissatisfaction due to the many judicial challenges to adjudicators’ determinations seen in recent years. The evolving tension between the object of the security of payment legislation and excessive involvement of the courts has often been the subject of comment by the judiciary. This paper aims to examine the legislative and judicial approaches to support the object of the security of payment legislation to ease cash flow. The paper adopts a desktop study approach whereby evidence is gathered from three primary sources – judicial decisions, academic publications and governmental reports. The paper concludes that there is a need to adopt other measures which can provide more convenient relief to aggrieved parties to an adjudication process, such that the adjudication process is kept away from the courts as far as is possible. Specifically, it is proposed that a well-designed expanded legislative review scheme of allegedly flawed adjudication, based on that provided in the Western Australian legislation, might stand as a promising remedy to eliminate the evolving tension.

Supersession of the senior-most judges in Bangladesh in appointing the chief justice and the other judges of the appellate division of the supreme court : a convenient means to a politicized bench

The Constitution of Bangladesh has provided the President with the unfettered power to appoint the Chief Justice of Bangladesh. However, the President is required by the Constitution to act on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Chief Justice, in appointing the puisne judges of the Supreme Court - the apex court of the nation. This Article finds that in the absence of any specific constitutional provisions specifying that the senior-most judge of the Appellate Division - the higher Division of the Supreme Court - should be appointed as the Chief Justice, a convention to this effect was developed for ensuring that extraneous considerations did not play a part in the pivotal appointment of the Chief Justice. In the same vein, a convention of appointing the senior-most judges of the High Court Division, which is the lower Division of the Supreme Court, as the judges of the Appellate Division was developed. But both these conventions have been transgressed at regular intervals by succeeding generations of executives, particularly by the current one, for politicizing the superior judiciary of the nation, thereby undermining its credibility in the eyes of the litigants as an impartial arbitrator of disputes. Accordingly, this article concludes that in order to exclude the possibility of appointments on extraneous considerations, the principles of appointing the Chief Justice and the other judges of the Appellate Division on the basis of seniority should be inserted in the Constitution by means of an amendment.