Witness Anonymity at the International Criminal Court: Due Process for Defendants, Witnesses or Both?

The question of how far and in what way to extend protection to witnesses in trials has manifested itself in institutions as diverse as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the ad hoc criminal tribunals (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone), and most recently the International Criminal Court (ICC). This is not surprising; as David Lusty has pointed out in his seminal analysis of the use of anonymous accusers, the question has arisen in almost every legal deliberative body for the past two thousand years.

The Impact of Cooperation on Defendants' Rights before the ICC: A Contextual Approach

The present study locates the challenges faced by defendants during cooperation proceedings in the context of the unique structural system of the Court, and the inherent tensions and limitations that characterize the ICC’s functioning. The study is divided into two parts. The first part sets out the institutional and jurisdictional context in which cooperation plays out at the ICC. Chapter 2 addresses the ICC dependence on cooperation from an institutional, a political and a normative dimension, showing that compliance with requests for cooperation is ultimately tied to State political willingness and international political pressure; Chapter 3 delves into the connection between cooperation and the complementary jurisdiction of the Court, criticising the ‘positive approach’ to complementarity endorsed by the Prosecutor in order to enhance states cooperation. The second part of the study addresses the impact that cooperation occurring in the above-explained context has on the right to liberty of defendants and on equality of arms. Chapter 4 and 5 analyse the ICC’s law protecting the selected rights, as well as the practice regarding allegations of violations of these rights brought forward by some defendants. It concludes that, so far, the organs of the Court (i.e., the Prosecutor and the judges) have failed to engage with the structural tensions and limitations of the Court with a view of protecting the rights of suspects and accused.

Sex and sentencing disparity in South Australia’s higher courts

In Australia, studies examining sex differences in sentencing are limited. Using data from South Australia’s higher courts, this article explores a study on the impact of sex on the decision to imprison and the length of imprisonment. After adjusting for past and current criminality, results showed that men were significantly more likely than women to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment and that when sentence length was decided, men received longer periods of incarceration. Furthermore, the study’s results suggest that different factors may be important in determining sentencing outcomes for women and men.

Discrimination or Differential Involvement? A Review of the Research Exploring the Impact of Indigenous Status on Sentencing

Existing court data suggest that adult Indigenous offenders are more likely than non-Indigenous defendants to be sentenced to prison but once imprisoned generally receive shorter terms. Using findings from international and Australian multivariate statistical analyses, this paper reviews the three key hypotheses advanced as plausible explanations for these differences: 1) differential involvement, 2) negative discrimination, 3) positive discrimination. Overall, prior research shows strong support for the differential involvement thesis, some support for positive discrimination and little foundation for negative discrimination in the sentencing of Indigenous defendants. Where discrimination is found, we argue that this may be explained by the lack of a more complete set of control variables in researchers’ multivariate models.

Indigeneity and the judicial decision to imprison : a study of Western Australia’s higher courts

Internationally, sentencing research has largely neglected the impact of Indigeneity on sentencing outcomes. Using data from Western Australia’s higher courts for the years 2003–05, we investigate the direct and interactive effects of Indigenous status on the judicial decision to imprison. Unlike prior research on race/ethnicity in which minority offenders are often found to be more harshly treated by sentencing courts, we find that Indigenous status has no direct effect on the decision to imprison,after adjusting for other sentencing factors (especially past and current criminality).However, there are sub-group differences: Indigenous males are more likely to receive a prison sentence compared to non-Indigenous females. We draw on the focal concerns perspective of judicial decision making in interpreting our findings.

Mental harm, rescuers and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

At common law, a duty of care may be owed to a claimant who suffers nervous shock or pure mental harm due to witnessing, or hearing about, physical injury caused to another due to a defendant’s negligence. “Pure mental harm” is the ‘impairment of a person’s mental condition’ that is not suffered as a consequence of any other kind of personal injury to them. However, as many accidents have the potential to create a wide circle of mental suffering to bystanders, family members or others not physically injured themselves, it has traditionally been ‘thought impolitic that everybody so affected should be able to recover damages from the tortfeasor.’ ‘To allow such extended recovery would stretch liability too far.’ Nevertheless, whilst adopting a restrictive approach to liability, the common law courts have recognised that a defendant might owe a duty in relation to the pure mental harm suffered by one who foreseeably attends an accident scene to rescue another from a situation created by the defendant’s negligence.

Defences in medical negligence : to what extent has tort law reform in Australia limited the liability of health professionals?

Tort law reform has resulted in legislation being passed by all Australian jurisdictions in the past decade implementing the recommendations contained in the Ipp Report. The report was in response to a perceived crisis in medical indemnity insurance. The objective was to restrict and limit liability in negligence actions. This paper will consider to what extent the reforms have impacted on the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions. The reversal of the onus of proof through the obvious risk sections has attempted to extend the scope of the defence of voluntary assumption of risk. There is no liability for the materialisation of an inherent risk. Presumptions and mandatory reductions for contributory negligence have attempted to reduce the liability of defendants. It is now possible for reductions of 100% for contributory negligence. Apologies can be made with no admission of legal liability to encourage them being made and thereby reduce the number of actions being commenced. The peer acceptance defence has been introduced and enacted by legislation. There is protection for good samaritans even though the Ipp Report recommended against such protection. Limitation periods have been amended. Provisions relating to mental harm have been introduced re-instating the requirement of normal fortitude and direct perception. After an analysis of the legislation, it will be argued in this paper that while there has been some limitation and restriction, courts have generally interpreted the civil liability reforms in compliance with the common law. It has been the impact of statutory limits on the assessment of damages which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

Long term exposure to asbestos satisfies test for causation

Background In Booth v Amaca Pty Ltd and Amaba Pty Ltd,1 the New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal awarded a retired motor mechanic $326 640 in damages for his malignant pleural mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos through working with the brake linings manufactured by the defendants. The evidence before the Tribunal was that the plaintiff had been exposed to asbestos prior to working as a mechanic from home renovations when he was a child and loading a truck as a youth. However, as a mechanic he had been exposed to asbestos in brake linings on which he worked from 1953 to 1983. Curtis DCJ held at [172] that the asbestos from the brake linings ‘materially contributed to [the plaintiff’s] contraction of mesothelioma’. This decision was based upon acceptance that the effect of exposure to asbestos on the development of mesothelioma was cumulative and rejection of theory that a single fibre of asbestos can cause the disease...

The Impact of Indigenous status on adult sentencing : a review of the statistical research literature.

The gross overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in prison populations suggests that sentencing may be a discriminatory process. Using findings from recent (1991–2011) multivariate statistical sentencing analyses from the United States, Canada, and Australia, we review the 3 key hypotheses advanced as plausible explanations for baseline sentencing discrepancies between Indigenous and non-Indigenous adult criminal defendants: (a) differential involvement, (b) negative discrimination, and (c) positive discrimination. Overall, the prior research shows strong support for the differential involvement thesis and some support for the discrimination theses (positive and negative). We argue that where discrimination is found, it may be explained by the lack of a more complete set of control variables in researchers’ multivariate models and/or differing political and social contexts.

Indigeneity and the likelihood of imprisonment in Queensland’s adult and children’s courts

Australian research on Indigenous sentencing disparities of the standard of international work is somewhat recent. Contrary to expectations based on international research, Australian studies generally have not found Indigenous offenders to be treated substantively more harshly than non-Indigenous offenders in similar circumstances. However, this research has primarily focused on adult higher courts, with little attention to lower courts and children’s courts. In this article, we examine whether Indigeneity has a direct impact on the judicial decision to incarcerate for three courts (adult higher, adult lower, children’s higher court) in Queensland. We found no significant differences in the likelihood of a sentence of incarceration in the higher courts (adult and children’s). In contrast, in the lower courts, Indigenous defendants were more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous defendants when sentenced under statistically similar circumstances.

Sentencing indigenous and non-indigenous women in Western Australia's higher courts : A summary of the main findings of a narrative study

This paper presents the main findings of a narrative examination of higher court sentencing remarks to explore the relationship between Indigeneity and sentencing for female defendants in Western Australia. Using the theoretical framework of focal concerns, we found that key differences in the construction of blameworthiness and risk between the sentencing stories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous female offenders, through the identification of issues such as mental health, substance abuse, familial trauma and community ties. Further, in the sentencing narratives, Indigenous women were viewed differently in terms of social costs of imprisonment.

Insights into special costs orders : WA court examines compliance and retrospectivity

In Walter v Buckeridge [No.5] [2012] WASC 495 Le Miere J considered an application by the defendants for special costs orders under the applicable legislation in Western Australia. Aspects of the decision may be of persuasive value in dealing with similar issues under Queensland legislation.

Pleading - self-incrimination and penalty privileges

In Anderson v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] QCA 301 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the decision of the primary judge (ASIC v Managed Investments Ltd No 3 [2012] QSC 74. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the defendants’ non-compliance with the pleading rules in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) was justified by the claims to privilege against self-incrimination or exposure to a penalty.

Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments : are the rules appropriate?

The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is an aspect of private international law, and concerns situations where a successful party to litigation seeks to rely on a judgment obtained in one court, in a court in another jurisdiction. The most common example where the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments may arise is where a party who has obtained a favourable judgment in one state or country may seek to recognise and enforce the judgment in another state or country. This occurs because there is no sufficient asset in the state or country where the judgment was rendered to satisfy that judgment. As technological advancements in communications over vast geographical distances have improved exponentially in recent years, there has been an increase in cross-border transactions, as well as litigation arising from these transactions. As a result, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is of increasing importance, since a party who has obtained a judgment in cross-border litigation may wish to recognise and enforce the judgment in another state or country, where the defendant’s assets may be located without having to re-litigate substantive issues that have already been resolved in another court. The purpose of the study is to examine whether the current state of laws for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Australia, the United States and the European Community are in line with modern-commercial needs. The study is conducted by weighing two competing objectives between the notion of finality of litigation, which encourages courts to recognise and enforce judgments foreign to them, on the one hand, and the adequacy of protection to safeguard the recognition and enforcement proceedings, so that there would be no injustice or unfairness if a foreign judgment is recognised and enforced, on the other. The findings of the study are as follows. In both Australia and the United States, there is a different approach concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by courts interstate or in a foreign country. In order to maintain a single and integrated nation, there are constitutional and legislative requirements authorising courts to give conclusive effects to interstate judgments. In contrast, if the recognition and enforcement actions involve judgments rendered by a foreign country’s court, an Australian or a United States court will not recognise and enforce the foreign judgment unless the judgment has satisfied a number of requirements and does not fall under any of the exceptions to justify its non-recognition and non-enforcement. In the European Community, the Brussels I Regulation which governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments among European Union Member States has created a scheme, whereby there is only a minimal requirement that needs to be satisfied for the purposes of recognition and enforcement. Moreover, a judgment that is rendered by a Member State and based on any of the jurisdictional bases set forth in the Brussels I Regulation is entitled to be recognised and enforced in another Member State without further review of its underlying jurisdictional basis. However, there are concerns as to the adequacy of protection available under the Brussels I Regulation to safeguard the judgment-enforcing Member States, as well as those against whom recognition or enforcement is sought. This dissertation concludes by making two recommendations aimed at improving the means by which foreign judgments are recognised and enforced in the selected jurisdictions. The first is for the law in both Australia and the United States to undergo reform, including: adopting the real and substantial connection test as the new jurisdictional basis for the purposes of recognition and enforcement; liberalising the existing defences to safeguard the application of the real and substantial connection test; extending the application of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) in Australia to include at least its important trading partners; and implementing a federal statutory scheme in the United States to govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The second recommendation is to introduce a convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The convention will be a convention double, which provides uniform standards for the rules of jurisdiction a court in a contracting state must exercise when rendering a judgment and a set of provisions for the recognition and enforcement of resulting judgments.