Australian property law: cases, materials and analysis

"CONTENTS: Concepts of Property; Possession and Title; Fixtures, Encroachment and Boundaries; Adverse Possession; The Doctrine of Tenure and Estates; Leases; Native Title; Equitable Interests; Priority Rules; The Torrens System; Unregistered Interests; Easements; Covenants; Mortgages; Co-ownership."--Provided by publisher.

AssetDivider : a new mediation tool in Australian family law

This article describes research in a new theory of decision support in negotiation in family law mediation. AssetDivider was based on the principles of Family_Winner. As a Negotiation Decision Support System Family_Winner takes ratings assigned to items by the parties involved and develops a list of allocations to each party; based on trade-offs inherently present in the dispute. Given advice provided from our industry partners Relationships Australia (Queensland) - RAQ, AssetDivider uses an ideal “percentage split” to guide the development of an allocation list for parties. The system has been tested informally by our contacts at RAQ, and we now look forward to extensive testing and evaluation by mediators at RAQ in the near future. We hope to report on a comprehensive evaluation which will report on the effectiveness of this program in practice.

Against settlement? Owen Fiss, ADR and Australian discrimination law

In his celebrated article, Against Settlement, Owen Fiss objected to settlement for, among other things, securing the peace while not necessarily delivering justice and denying the court the opportunity to interpret the law. Fiss sees settlement as a technique for streamlining court dockets, the civil equivalent of plea bargaining. This paper explores Fiss’s criticisms through the lens of resolving discrimination complaints in Australia. It argues that although it is valuable to offer complainants a system for resolving complaints quickly and informally, especially in a jurisdiction in which complainants are often from marginalised groups, it is also necessary to recognise that this system is limited in how effectively it can develop the law and, by extension, eradicate discrimination. In essence, the system’s operation epitomises Fiss’ opposition to settlement. Modifying the complaint resolution system would improve this situation. The paper concludes by proposing three reforms based on mechanisms used in comparable countries: introducing direct access to the court or tribunal; strengthening ADR by making it voluntary and incorporating a ‘rights-based’ approach; and encouraging the regular publication of specific information about settlements and significant cases.

An argument for uniform Australian sentencing law

Sentencing law and practice impacts on fundamental individual interests, both from the perspective of offenders and victims. It also affects community safety and security The scope of sentencing law and its principal objectives are broadly similar throughout Australia. However, there are many important differences, especially in relation to sentencing practice, with some jurisdictions appearing to impose considerably heavier penalties for certain offence types. This article argues that uniform sentencing law should be implemented throughout Australia. The likely benefits would extend beyond achieving greater consistency in sentencing outcomes. A move toward uniform national sentencing laws would provide the catalyst for an objective, evidence-based review of sentencing policy and practice, thereby providing a vehicle for harmonising the law with a wealth of empirical data regarding the objectives that can be achieved through a system of state-imposed sanctions. It would also present a meaningful opportunity for a normative assessment of the justifiable operation of sentencing law. The main impediment to uniform sentencing laws is likely to come from state and territory governments seeking to maintain control over this often socially controversial area as a means of securing and maintaining community support. However, this obstacle is not necessarily insurmountable. It is not clear whether sentencing policy is, in fact, a main driver of voter preferences. Some politicians may prefer to have ·national uniformity' as a buffer to counteract reflexive calls for tougher sentencing that often occur following particularly serious crimes or seemingly light sentences handed down by courts.

Tracks to advocacy: journalism studies, animal rights and Australian media law

This article considers the role of animal rights-based journalism and its connection to teaching media law and ethics to undergraduate students in an Australian university arts faculty. An anecdotal discussion of a reflective practice informing the teaching of an undergraduate course in a journalism major relates questions of ethics and law to broader considerations of the role of advocacy in and around journalism, and media practice. It is argued that animal rights-related stories have a role in training media professionals, and also in inspiring journalists to envision their own work as part of the democratic mechanisms of social and legal reform in Australia.

Consent as a Common Law Defence to Non-Sexual Assaults: The Effect of Neal v The Queen

The following discussion is an exposition of the recognised exceptions to the general rule that the law will not sanction the giving of a lawful consent to the application or threat of actual or grievous bodily harm. The discussion will also focus on a series of decisions in the UK and Australia, particularly Neal v The Queen, that have altered the law's approach to these exceptions and, more importantly, now permit a personto give an informed consent to the risk of contracting HIV or any other sexually transmitted diseases, provided there was no intention on the part of the accused to actually infect the other person. The underlying rationale for sanctioning an informed consent to such a risk is that consenting adults should be accorded the utmost autonomy in conductingtheir private affairs, and particularly so in the context of the choices they make regarding their private sexual activities. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the notion of allowing one to lawfully consent to such a risk, it raises an important question as to the current status of the general rule that one cannot generally give an informed consent to the applicationor threat of actual or grievous bodily harm. More succinctly stated, if the law is prepared to allow an informed consent to the risk of contracting a potentially fatal disease, then what remains of what had previously been a well-settled rule that, save for a few well-recognised exceptions, persons were generally prohibited from consenting to the application or threat of actual or grievous bodily harm?