Rights versus reality : the difficulty of providing 'access to English' in Queensland courts

This project reviewed the success of the Aboriginal English in the Courts booklet which was published by the Department of Justice and Attorney-General in 2000, with a view to improving access to the courts for speakers of Aboriginal English in Queensland. Surveys and interview were conducted with judges, magistrates, prosecutors, legal aid lawyers and courts registry staff. The feedback from the research has shown that the handbook has had little impact on ‘access to English’ in Queensland courts. The problems relate to the tension between protecting the rights of the accused under an adversarial system and legitimately introducing the issues of language uncertainty to the court in a non-prejudicial manner. In addition, the interviews have brought to light emerging language issues in remote communities that cannot be remedied under existing language policy mechanisms, such as the provision of interpreters or friends of court.

Submission to the Legal Affairs and Community Safety Committee - Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012

This submission addresses the Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 which has as its objectives (1) the introduction of a Boot Camp Order as an option instead of detention for young offenders and (2) the removal of the option of court referred youth justice conferencing for young offenders. As members of the QUT Faculty of Law Centre for Crime and Justice we welcome the invitation to participate in the discussion of these issues which are critically important to the Queensland community at large but especially to our young people.

In defence of Victoria's Children's Court : its value and role in the child protection system

Australian child protection systems have been subject to sustained and significant criticism for many decades. As a central part of that system Children’s Courts have been implicated: three recent inquiries into the child protection system in Victoria all criticised the Family Division of the Children’s Court.1 In the resulting debate two diametrically opposed points of view surfaced about the Children’s Court and the role that legal procedures and professionals should play in child protection matters. On one side bodies like the Children’s Court of Victoria, Victoria Legal Aid (‘VLA’), the Law Institute of Victoria (‘LIV’), and the Federation of Community Legal Centres (‘FCLC’) argued that the Children’s Court plays a vital role in child protection and should continue to play that role.2 On the other side a coalition of human service and child protection agencies called for major change including the removal of the Children’s Court from the child protection system. Victoria’s Department of Human Services (‘DHS’) has been critical of the Court3 as have community sector organisations like Anglicare, Berry Street, MacKillop Family Services and the Salvation Army — all agencies the DHS funds to deliver child protection services.4 Victoria’s Child Safety Commissioner has also called for major reform, publicly labelling the Court a ‘lawyers’ playground’ and recommending abolishing the Court’s involvement in child protection completely.

Arguing the Autopsy : mutual suspicion, jurisdictional confusion and the socially marginal

Vulnerable and marginalised populations are not only over-represented in the criminal justice system, but also in civil jurisdictions like the coronial system. Moreover, many of the personnel who deal with criminal matters, especially in rural and regional areas, are also those who manage the coronial death investigation. This movement back and forth between civil and criminal jurisdictions is difficult for the both professional personnel and the families, but especially for those families who may also have had dealings with these personnel in the criminal justice system, or who present as suspicious due to larger historical and global issues. While coronial legislation now allows families to raise cultural and religious concerns about the process, particularly to do with the autopsy of their loved one, this also requires them to identify themselves to police at the initial stage of the death investigation. This paper, part of a larger body of work on autopsy decision making, discusses the ways in which this information is gathered by police, how it is communicated through the system, the ways in which families are supported through the process, and the difficulties that ensue.

Regulating bereavement : inquests, family pressure and the gate keeping of suicide statistics

This study of English Coronial practice raises a number of questions, not only regarding state investigations of suicide, but also of the role of the Coroner itself. Following observations at over 20 inquests into possible suicides, and in-depth interviews with six Coroners, three main issue emerged: first, there exists considerable slippage between different Coroners over which deaths are likely to be classified as suicide; second, the high standard of proof required, and immense pressure faced by Coroners from family members at inquest to reach any verdict other than suicide, can significantly depress likely suicide rates; and finally, Coroners feel no professional obligation, either individually or collectively, to contribute to the production of consistent and useful social data regarding suicide—arguably rendering comparative suicide statistics relatively worthless. These issues lead, ultimately, to a more important question about the role we expect Coroners to play within social governance, and within an effective, contemporary democracy.

Bail and remand for young people in Australia : a national research project

Funded and endorsed by the Australasian Juvenile Justice Administrators, this is one of the first national scale research reports into the bail and remand practices for young Australians. A young person can be placed in custody on remand (ie refused bail) after being arrested by police in relation to a suspected criminal offence, before entering a plea, while awaiting trial, during trial or awaiting sentence. Although custodial remand plays an important role in Western criminal justice systems, minimising the unnecessary use of remand is important given the obligations Australia has under several UN instruments to use, as a last resort, youth detention of any kind. This research identifies trends in the use of custodial remand and explores the factors that influence its use for young people nationally and in each of Australia’s jurisdictions.

Suicide and the therapeutic coroner : inquests, governance and the grieving family

This study of English Coronial practice raises a number of questions about the role played by the Coroner within contemporary governance. Following observations at over 20 inquests into possible suicides and in-depth interviews with six Coroners, three preliminary issue emerged, all of which pointed to a broader and, in many ways, more significant issue. These preliminary issues are concerned with: (1) the existence of considerable slippages between different Coroners over which deaths are likely to be classified as suicide; (2) the high standard of proof required and immense pressure faced by Coroners from family members at inquest to reach any verdict other than suicide, which significantly depresses likely suicide rates, and; (3) Coroners feeling no professional obligation, either individually or collectively, to contribute to the production of consistent and useful social data regarding suicide, arguably rendering comparative suicide statistics relatively worthless. These concerns lead, ultimately, to the second more important question about the role expected of Coroners within social governance and within an effective, contemporary democracy. That is, are Coroners the principal officers in the public administration of death; or are they, first and foremost, a crucial part of the grieving process, one that provides important therapeutic interventions into the mental and emotional health of the community?

‘Structuring’ judicial sentencing discretion : consistency, guidance or pandering to the punitive?

Until quite recently, most Australian jurisdictions gave statutory force to the principle of imprisonment as a sanction of last resort, reflecting its status as the most punitive sentencing option open to the court.1 That principle gave primary discretion as to whether incarceration was the most appropriate means of achieving the purpose of a sentence to the sentencing court, which received all of the information relevant to the offence, the offender and any victim(s). The disestablishment of this principle is symptomatic of an increasing erosion of judicial discretion with respect to sentencing, which appears to be resulting in some extremely punitive consequences.

Suicide, statistics and the coroner: A comparative study of death investigations

Australia has a significantly higher suicide rate than England. Rather than accepting that this ‘statistical fact’ is a direct reflection of some positivist truth, this paper begins with the premise that how suicide is counted depends upon what counts as suicide. This study involves semi-structured interviews with coroners both in Australia and England, as well as observations at inquests. Important differences between the two coronial systems include: first, quite different logics of operation; second, the burden of proof for reaching a finding of suicide is significantly higher in England; and third, the presence of family members at English inquests results in far greater pressure being brought to bear upon coroners. These combined factors result in a reduced likelihood of English coroners reaching a finding of suicide. The conclusions are twofold. First, this research supports existing criticisms of comparative suicide statistics. Second, this research adds theoretical weight to criticisms of positivist analyses of social phenomena.

When coroners care too much: Therapeutic jurisprudence and suicide findings

In common law countries such as England and Australia, violent and otherwise unnatural deaths are investigated by coroners who make findings as to the “manner of death”. This includes determining whether the deceased person intentionally caused their own death. Previous research (Tait and Carpenter 2013a, 2013b, 2014) has suggested that coroners are reluctant to reach such determinations, citing the stigma of suicide and a need for sensitivity to grieving and traumatized families. Based on interviews with both English and Australian coroners, this paper explores whether an ‘ethic of care’ evident in English and Australian coronial suicide determinations, can be understood as an application of the ‘practices and techniques’ of therapeutic jurisprudence. Based on the ways in which coroners position the law as a potential therapeutic agent, we investigate how they understand their role and position as legal actors, and the effects of their decision making in the context of suspected suicides.

There is 'hope for you yet': The female drug offender in sentencing discourse

Language and gender research has, in recent years, emphasised the importance of examining the context-specific ways in which people ‘do gender’ in different situations. In this paper, we explore how women involved in drug offences, specifically methamphetamine manufacture offences, are constructed within the language of the courts. Thirty-six sentencing transcripts from the New Zealand courts were examined to investigate how such offences, committed by women, are understood. In order to explore the representation of female offenders, a critical discourse analytic approach was adopted. Such an approach recognises that linguistic modes not only create and legitimise power inequalities but also embody a specific worldview. Three gendered discourses were identified in the sentencing texts: (i) the discourse of femininity, reinforcing the socially prescribed female role; (ii) the discourse of aberration, concerning women who breach traditional gender role expectations, and; (iii) the discourse of salvation, presenting aberrant women with an opportunity to become ‘good’ women once again. The findings illustrate the ways in which processes of gendering take place within a specific community of practice: the courtroom.

Courts and Consociations: Human Rights versus Power-sharing

Consociations are power-sharing arrangements, increasingly used to manage ethno-nationalist, ethno-linguistic, and ethno-religious conflicts. Current examples include Belgium, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Burundi, and Iraq. Despite their growing popularity, they have begun to be challenged before human rights courts as being incompatible with human rights norms, particularly equality and non-discrimination.

Courts and Consociations examines the use of power-sharing agreements, their legitimacy, and their compatibility with human rights law. Key questions include to what extent, if any, consociations conflict with the liberal individualist preferences of international human rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to preserve peace and the integrity of political settlements.

In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational practices, twice in Belgium and then in Sejdic and Finci v Bosnia regarding the constitution established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court's decision in Sejdic and Finci has significantly altered the approach it previously took to judicial review of consociational arrangements in Belgium. This book accounts for this change and assess its implications. The problematic aspects of the current state of law are demonstrated. Future negotiators in places riven by potential or actual bloody ethnic conflicts may now have less flexibility in reaching a workable settlement, which may unintentionally contribute to sustaining such conflicts and make it more likely that negotiators will consider excluding regional and international courts from reviewing these political settlements.

Courts and Consociations:How human rights courts may destabilize power-sharing settlements

We consider the use of consociational arrangements to manage ethno-nationalist, ethno-linguistic, and ethno-religious conflicts, and their compatibility with non-discrimination and equality norms. Key questions include to what extent, if any, consociations conflict with the dictates of global justice and the liberal individualist preferences of international human rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to preserve peace and the integrity of political settlements. In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational practices, twice in Belgium and, most recently, in Sejdic and Finci, concerning the constitutional arrangements established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court’s recent decision in Sejdic and Finci has significantly altered the approach it previously took to judicial review of consociational arrangements in the Belgian cases. We seek to account for this change and assess its implications. We identify problematic aspects of the judgment and conclude that, although the Court’s decision indicates one possible trajectory of human rights courts’ reactions to consociations, this would be an unfortunate development because it leaves future negotiators in places riven by potential or manifest bloody ethnic conflicts with considerably less flexibility in reaching a settlement. That in turn may unintentionally contribute to sustaining such conflicts and make it more likely that advisors to negotiators will advise them to exclude regional and international courts from having standing in the management of political settlements.

Just a piece of cloth? German courts and employees with headscarves

On 10 October 2002, and on 24 September 2003, the German Federal Labour Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court each delivered a decision on the consequences of wearing a headscarf for employees. Both courts appeared to protect the individual rights of the woman in question. The Federal Labour Court invalidated the dismissal of a salesperson based on the wearing of a headscarf; the Federal Constitutional Court held that a school teacher must not be denied employment on grounds of wearing a headscarf. However, both courts also left some room for manoeuvre in favour of clothing policies or laicism principles which could be used to justify head-scarf bans. This note discussed the potential and drawback of these cases, especially as regards intersectional inequalities along the lines of gender, religion and ethnicity.