Dobbing: Australia’s favourite emergency pastime

While ‘dobbing’ is arguably viewed negatively, this behaviour has been on the rise during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on examples from the First World War and the pandemic, this article argues that this increased activity is typical of the Australian community during emergencies, facilitated by extensive legal frameworks that encourage this type of reporting.

Richardson v Oracle more than half a decade on: Did the ‘ground break’ for victim compensation?

In 2014, the decision in Richardson v Oracle significantly increased compensation awards for victims of discrimination and sexual harassment. Commentators referred to the decision as ‘ground-breaking’ and hypothesised that the floodgates would open for sexual harassment and discrimination cases. This article reviews these claims seven years on and asks: did the floodgates open? Case law review and analysis concludes that, while the ground did not break open for victims of discrimination and sexual harassment, it has certainly cracked – although unevenly. As such, more is required to create truly just outcomes for victims in discrimination law.

The European Union Artificial Intelligence Act: Potential implications for Australia

The European Union (EU) published its proposed Regulation laying down harmonised rules for Artificial Intelligence (the Artificial Intelligence Act) on 21 April 2021. Once it comes into force, this Act will impact upon Australia. It is therefore important that Australians take note of the proposal at this relatively early stage. This article brings attention to the key features of the EU’s proposed Artificial Intelligence Act. However, the main aim is to highlight why it is important for Australia and to examine, in some detail, the rules that will determine when the Act applies to Australians.

A jurisdictional collision? Responses to family violence and family law in the ACT

There has long been concern about the dynamics and inadequacies that may arise when the federal family law system intersects with state and territory civil responses to family violence. We explore the intersection of these two legal regimes in this article. Our findings are part of a larger project examining the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) that included interviewing both professional stakeholders and those with lived experience. Findings include a number of ways in which the safety of victim/survivors and their children could be jeopardised (or placed at risk) due to disharmony and communication issues between the two regimes.

NSW parliament’s oversight of human rights in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

New South Wales (NSW) relies on a robust application of the Westminster system of government for its human rights protection. In 2020, the system was subjected to a major stress test via the COVID-19 pandemic, with new public conditions imposed on previously unregulated individual freedoms. The author examines the extent to which human rights featured in NSW parliament’s oversight of the 2020 pandemic response and finds it inadequate. The author concludes that the case study demonstrates a need for the state’s human rights protection model to be reconsidered.

Corporal punishment in New South Wales: A call for repeal of section 61AA

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home in all Australian states and territories. In early 2021, the Tasmanian Commissioner for Children and Young People called for a repeal of s 50 of the Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas) which permits the use of corporal punishment in the home, noting that society had moved on from the regular canings of the early 20th century when the law was passed. This article supports the call to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement (lawful correction in NSW) by repealing s 61AA of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) so that children can have the same protections from physical violence as adults.

New limits on the right to freedom of expression from Hamzy v Commissioner of Corrective Services

This article examines a 2020 NSW Supreme Court judgment upholding the legality of English-only rules for communications by ‘extreme high risk restricted’ prison inmates. The article focuses on the reasoning regarding claims to human rights to freedom of expression and from racial discrimination. It explains that the decision provides a rare insight into problematic Australian judicial thinking about language choice in expression, the intersection of racial and linguistic discrimination and the characterisation of English as Australia’s ‘official’ or ‘de facto’ national language.

Helping jurors to understand: Misconceptions about delay in making a complaint

In a sexual offence case, jurors may have misconceptions that inappropriately affect their evaluation of a complainant’s evidence, for example, where the complainant has not complained at the first reasonable opportunity to do so. In Victoria, a judge may assist jurors to understand why a complainant may not have complained earlier by providing examples that are not drawn from the evidence. The Victorian Court of Appeal has recently questioned the legislative authority to do this. This article answers the Court’s question. It also considers the Court’s obligations to address this misconception, having regard to a complainant’s interests, to ensure a fair trial.

What does a social justice lawyer need to know?

Social justice lawyers work to address social phenomena such as inequality, disadvantage, discrimination, marginalisation, oppression and abuse, addressing the immediate needs of a client, or the structural causes of those needs, or both. But social justice lawyers are rarely explicit about the specific knowledge and qualities that their lawyering demands, and that they demonstrate. Across doctrine, theory, values, skills and ethics, there is benefit in setting out what it can mean to be a social justice lawyer, for discussion, comment, criticism, reflection and refinement.