The Church of England : Charity Law and Human Rights

This book examines the interface between religion, charity law and human rights. It does so by treating the Church of England and its current circumstances as a timely case study providing an opportunity to examine the tensions that have now become such a characteristic feature of that interface. Firstly, it suggests that the Church is the primary source of canon law principles that have played a formative role in shaping civic morality throughout the common law jurisdictions: the history of their emergence and enforcement by the State in post-Reformation England is recorded and assessed. Secondly, it reveals that of such principles those of greatest weight were associated with matters of sexuality: in particular, for centuries, family law was formulated and applied with regard for the sanctity of the heterosexual marital family which provided the only legally permissible context for any form of sexual relationship. Thirdly, given that history, it identifies and assesses the particular implications that now arise for the Church as a consequence of recent charity law reform outcomes and human rights case law developments: a comparative analysis of religion related case law is provided. Finally, following an outline of the structure and organizational functions of the Church, a detailed analysis is undertaken of its success in engaging with these issues in the context of the Lambeth Conferences, the wider Anglican Communion and in the ill-fated Covenant initiative. From the perspective of the dilemmas currently challenging the moral authority of the Church of England, this book identifies and explores the contemporary ‘moral imperatives’ or red line issues that now threaten the coherence of Christian religions in most leading common law nations. Gay marriage and abortion are among the host of morally charged and deeply divisive topics demanding a reasoned response and leadership from religious bodies. Attention is given to the judicial interpretation and evaluation of these and other issues that now undermine the traditional role of the Church of England. As the interface between religion, charity law and human rights becomes steadily more fractious, with religious fundamentalism and discrimination acquiring a higher profile, there is now a pressing need for a more balanced relationship between those with and those without religious beliefs. This book will be an invaluable aid in starting the process of achieving a triangulated relationship between the principles of canon law, charity law and human rights law.

Charity law reforms : overview of progress since 2001

In the UK, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, as in many other jurisdictions, charity law is rooted in the common law and anchored on the Statute of Charitable Uses 1601. The Pemsel classification of charitable purposes was uniformly accepted, and together with a shared and growing pool of judicial precedents, aided by the ‘spirit and intendment’ rule, has subsequently allowed the law to develop along much the same lines. In recent years, all the above jurisdictions have embarked on law reform processes designed to strengthen regulatory processes and to statutorily define and encode common law concepts. The reform outcomes are now to be found in a batch of national charity statutes which reflect interesting differences in the extent to which their respective governments have been prepared to balance the modernising of charitable purposes and other common law concepts alongside the customary concern to tighten the regulatory framework.

Modernising charity law : recent developments and future directions

In recent years the pressure for charity law reform has swept across the common law jurisdictions with differing results. Modernising Charity Law examines how the UK jurisdictions have enacted significant statutory reforms after many years of debate, whilst the federations of Canada and Australia seem merely to have intentions of reform. New Zealand and Singapore have begun their own reform journeys. This highly insightful book brings together perspectives from academics, regulators and practitioners from across the common law jurisdictions. The expert contributors consider the array of reforms to charity law and assess their relative successes. Particular attention is given to the controversial issues of expanded heads of charity, public benefit, religion, competition with business, government participation and regulation. The book concludes by challenging the very notion of charity as a foundation for societies which, faced by an array of global threats and the rising tide of human rights, must now also embrace the expanding notions of social capital, social entrepreneurism and civil society. This original and highly topical work will be a valuable resource for academics, regulators and legal practitioners as well as advanced and postgraduate students in law and public policy. Specialists in charity law, comparative law, and law and public policy should also not be without this important book.

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.

Insurance and the law of negligence : an influential or irrelevant persuader?

This article examines, from both within and outside the context of compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance, the different academic and judicial perspectives regarding the relevance of insurance to the imposition of negligence liability via the formulation of legal principle. In particular, the utility of insurance in setting the standard of care held owing by a learner driver to an instructor in Imbree v McNeilly is analysed and the implications of this High Court decision, in light of current jurisprudential argument and for other principles of negligence liability, namely claimant vulnerability, are considered. It concludes that ultimately one’s stance as to the relevance, or otherwise, of insurance to the development of the common law of negligence will be predominately influenced by normative views of torts’ function as an instrument of corrective or distributive justice.

Palliative care, double effect and the law in Australia

Care and decision-making at the end of life that promotes comfort and dignity is widely endorsed by public policy and the law. In ethical analysis of palliative care interventions that are argued potentially to hasten death, these may be deemed to be ethically permissible by the application of the doctrine of double effect, if the doctor’s intention is to relieve pain and not cause death. In part because of the significance of ethics in the development of law in the medical sphere, this doctrine is also likely to be recognized as part of Australia’s common law, although hitherto there have been no cases concerning palliative care brought before a court in Australia to test this. Three Australian States have, nonetheless, created legislative defences that are different from the common law with the intent of clarifying the law, promoting palliative care, and distinguishing it from euthanasia. However, these defences have the potential to provide less protection for doctors administering palliative care. In addition to requiring a doctor to have an appropriate intent, the defences insist on adherence to particular medical practice standards and perhaps require patient consent. Doctors providing end-of-life care in these States need to be aware of these legislative changes. Acting in accordance with the common law doctrine of double effect may not provide legal protection. Similar changes are likely to occur in other States and Territories as there is a trend towards enacting legislative defences that deal with the provision of palliative care.

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. 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 through thresholds and caps which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

Physicality in Australian Patent Law

It is generally understood that the patent system exists to encourage the conception and disclosure of new and useful inventions embodied in machines and other physical devices, along with new methods that physically transform matter from one state to another. What is not well understood is whether, and to what extent, the patent system is to encourage and protect the conception and disclosure of inventions that are non-physical methods – namely those that do not result in a physical transformation of matter. This issue was considered in Grant v Commissioner of Patents. In that case the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patentable subject matter. In doing so, it introduced a physicality requirement into Australian law. What this article seeks to establish is whether the court’s decision is consistent with the case law on point. It does so by examining the key common law cases that followed the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regard to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This is done with a view to determining whether there is anything in those cases that supports the view that the Australian patentable subject matter test contains a physicality requirement.

Good and bad Sharia : Australia's mixed response to Islamic law

Reflecting on the legal consequences of globalisation in the 21st century, Twining predicted that societies in the West would have to 'wrestle with the extent to which the state should recognise, make concessions to, or even enforce norms and values embedded in different religions, cultures or traditions'. This is borne out as the direction across the common law world moves towards entrenching legal pluralism. The concessions each nation has made to minorities with different religions, cultures and traditions have varied. The special character of Islam, as a comprehensive blueprint for life in which law and religion unite, has meant that the negotiations for a special place for Muslims within each common law jurisdiction has been at the forefront of new legal ordering possibilities. This is the crux of the pluralism debate. Cautiously, Australians have watched the, at times histrionic, discourse in Canada and Great Britain on official recognition for Islamic law.

Environmental law and the economic impact on Australian firms

In response to international awareness of environmental issues and the inadequacies of common law actions, legislation has been enacted by Australian governments to facilitate environmental protection. The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) and accompanying Environmental Protection (Interim) Regulation 1995 (Qld) is one example of government response to mounting public pressure to legislate for the environment. Investigation into the operation of the legislation exposes the costs faced by Australian firms in its application. The legislation identifies a number of environmentally relevant activities and imposes licensing and reporting requirements on firms undertaking such activities. In view of these legislative requirements and the increasing public awareness of environmental issues over the last decade in Australia, it could be expected that firms undertaking environmentally sensitive activities will place greater importance on the management of environmental issues. If so, the greater prominence placed on environmental management may be reflected in disclosures made by the firm to its shareholders and other interested parties. This article investigates the type and extent of costs currently imposed by the body of environmental laws in Australia with the discussion primarily focusing upon costs imposed due to the operation of environmental legislation in Queensland. Further, the article reports empirical analysis of management response to environmental issues where firms are undertaking environmentally sensitive activities.

Why ADR must be a mandatory subject in the law degree - the academy

The profession of law is deeply steeped in tradition and conservatism. The content and pedagogy employed in law faculties across Australia is similarly steeped in tradition and conservatism. Indeed, the practice of law and our institutions of legal education are in a relationship of mutual influence; a dénouement which preserves the best aspects of our common law legal system, but also leaves the way we educate, practice, and think about the role of law, resistant to change. In this article, we lay down a challenge to legal education orthodoxy and a call to arms for legal academic progressivists. It is our simple argument that alternative dispute resolution should be a compulsory, stand alone subject in the law degree. There has been traditional pushback against the notion that alternative dispute resolution should have a place amongst black letter law subjects in the legal curriculum. This position cannot be maintained in the modern day legal climate. We put forward ten simple arguments as to why every law student should be exposed to a semester long course of ADR instruction. With respect to relationships of mutual influence, whether legal education should assimilate the practise of law, or shape the practise of law makes no difference here. Both views necessitate the inclusion of ADR as a compulsory subject in the law degree.

Why ADR must be a mandatory subject in the law degree : A cheat sheet for the willing and a primer for the non-believer

The profession of law is deeply steeped in tradition and conservatism, which influences the content and pedagogy employed in law faculties across Australia. Indeed, the practice of law and the institutions of legal education are in a relationship of mutual influence; a dénouement which preserves the best aspects of the common law legal system, but also leaves the way we educate, practice and think about the role of law resistant to change. In this article, the authors lay down a challenge to legal education orthodoxy and a call to arms for legal academic progressivists: that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) should be a compulsory, stand alone subject in the law degree. The authors put forward 10 simple arguments as to why every law student should be exposed to a semester-long course of ADR instruction.

Religion, Charity and Human Rights

For the first time in 400 years a number of leading common law nations have, fairly simultaneously, embarked on charity law reform leading to an encoding of key definitional matters in charity legislation. This book provides an analysis of international case law developments on the ever growing range of issues now being generated by clashes between human rights, religion and charity law. Kerry O'Halloran identifies and assesses the agenda of 'moral imperatives', such as abortion and gay marriage that delineate the legal interface and considers their significance for those with and those without religious belief. By assessing jurisdictional differences in the law relating to religion/human rights/charity the author provides a picture of the evolving 'culture wars' that now typify and differentiates societies in western nations including the USA, England and Wales, Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Cutting the Gordian knot of futility : a case for law reform on unilateral withholding and withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatment

In this paper, we propose law reform with respect to the unilateral withholding or withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatment in Australia and New Zealand. That is, where a doctor withholds or withdraws potentially life-sustaining treatment without consent from a patient or a patient’s substitute decision-maker (where the patient lacks capacity), or authorisation from a court or tribunal, or by operation of a statute or justifiable government or institutional policy. Our proposal is grounded in the core values that do (or should) underpin a regulatory framework on an issue such as this; these values are drawn from existing commitments made by Australia and New Zealand through legislation, the common law, and conventions and treaties. It is also grounded in a critical review of the law on unilateral withholding and withdrawal as well as the legal context within which this issue sits in Australasia. We argue that the current law is inconsistent with the core values and develop a proposal for a legal response to this issue that more closely aligns with the core values it is supposed to serve.

Work Health and Safety Law and Policy

The third edition of Work Health and Safety Law and Policy continues to provide a plain English approach to explaining and analysing the law which regulates work health and safety in Australia. Providing broad coverage, this book focuses on the role that legal regulation plays in preventing work-related injury and disease, as well as the way in which the law contributes to rehabilitating and compensating injured and ill workers. This third edition focuses on the national model Work Health and Safety Bill 2009. The provisions of the model Bill are outlined, along with court decisions and other documentation that help interpret the provisions in new legislation enacting the model Bill. There is also a chapter in the book examining the national model Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011, and model codes of practice. The book includes three chapters on common law, statutory workers’ compensation provisions and rehabilitation. Tables summarising the key legal provisions of the major Australian Commonwealth, State and Territory workers’ compensation statutes have been updated and give quick and easy reference to points of legislation.