Crowe on 'The Evolution of Natural Law'

Professor Jonathan Crowe of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice has published 'The Evolution of Natural Law'.  The paper appears as a chapter in the edited collection Research Handbook on Legal Evolution (edited by Wojciech Zaluski, Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, and Adam Dyrda).  Here is the abstract:

"This chapter examines the evolution of natural law - not natural law ideas or theories, but natural law itself. The chapter begins by exploring how the normative inclinations by which humans identify the content of natural law are shaped and guided by social circumstances and practices. It then discusses two specific mechanisms by which social expressions of natural law evolve: communal norms and value commitments. I argue that these processes play a central role in the development of natural law and should be recognised as such within natural law theories."

Gray on ‘Freedom of Speech in the Woke Era: Critical Race Theory and State Neutrality’

Professor Anthony Gray, recently of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice, has published a new article titled 'Freedom of Speech in the Woke Era: Critical Race Theory and State Neutrality'.  The article appears in Volume 12 of the Western Australia Jurist.  Here is the abstract:

"This chapter advocates for freedom of speech against the kind of post-modern critical race theory that is said to justify serious restrictions on speech relating to race.  A liberal democratic society is fundamentally premised on freedom of speech.  This should be a neutral political principle, espoused by all sides of politics.  And yet, politicians of all political persuasions are being seduced by the woke shutdown, de-platforming vibe.  This is undemocratic and those who cherish democratic, free speech principles must fight back with strong speech."

Hemming on 'Why Australia Should Adopt the English Model for Propensity and Bad Character Evidence: Re-balancing the Criminal Justice System in Favour of the Victims of Crime'

Associate Professor Andrew Hemming of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice has co-written (along with Emma Hudson) a new article titled 'Why Australia Should Adopt the English Model for Propensity and Bad Character Evidence: Re-balancing the Criminal Justice System in Favour of the Victims of Crime'.  The article appears in Volume 47(2) of the Criminal Law Journal.  Here is the abstract:

"In recent years, Australian jurisdictions have reformed the admissibility of propensity evidence, most particularly for sexual offences against children, but have left the admissibility of bad character evidence untouched. This article argues that Australia should follow the English example and comprehensively reform both propensity and bad character evidence by adopting the seven gateways model found in s 101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (England and Wales), which makes it easier for the Crown to adduce propensity and bad character evidence into court. Australian law reform bodies and legal academics have virtually ignored this revolutionary development in England, which the authors argue is a major oversight that needs to be addressed in the context of re-balancing the criminal justice system in favour of the victims of crime."

Gray on ‘Viability of a Psychiatric Injury Claim for Bystanders Who Witnessed and Rescuers Who Attended the Sea World Helicopter Accident’

Professor Anthony Gray, recently of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice, has published a new article titled ‘Viability of a Psychiatric Injury Claim for Bystanders Who Witnessed and Rescuers Who Attended the Sea World Helicopter Accident’.  The article appears in Volume 98(2) of the Australian Law Journal.  Here is the abstract:

"This article considers the extent to which an observer or a rescuer who were caught up in the Sea World Helicopter Accident might have a viable claim for psychiatric injury they can demonstrate to have been caused by what they saw on that day. This is on the assumption that at least some finding of fault is made against a particular individual or organisation in relation to the accident."

Ribeiro on ‘The impact of misinformation presented during jury deliberation on juror memory and decision-making’

Dr Gianni Ribeiro of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice has co-written a new journal article titled 'The impact of misinformation presented during jury deliberation on juror memory and decision-making'.  The article appears in Volume 15 of Frontiers in Psychology.  Here is the abstract:

"When deliberating, jurors may introduce misinformation that may influence other jurors’ memory and decision-making. In two studies, we explored the impact of misinformation exposure during jury deliberation. Participants in both studies read a transcript of an alleged sexual assault. In Study 1 (N = 275), participants encountered either consistent pro-prosecution misinformation, consistent pro-defense misinformation, or contradictory misinformation (pro-prosecution and pro-defense). In Study 2 (N = 339), prior to encountering either pro-prosecution or pro-defense misinformation while reading a jury deliberation transcript, participants either received or did not receive a judicial instruction about misinformation exposure during deliberation. Participants in both studies completed legal decision-making variables (e.g., defendant guilt rating) before and after deliberation, and their memory was assessed for misinformation acceptance via recall and source memory tasks. In Study 1, misinformation type did not influence legal decision-making, but pro-prosecution misinformation was more likely to be misattributed as trial evidence than pro-defense or contradictory misinformation. In Study 2, pro-defense misinformation was more likely to be misattributed to the trial than pro-prosecution misinformation, and rape myths moderated this. Furthermore, exposure to pro-defense misinformation skewed legal decision-making towards the defense’s case. However, the judicial instruction about misinformation exposure did not influence memory or decision-making. Together, these findings suggest that misinformation in jury deliberations may distort memory for trial evidence and bias decision-making, highlighting the need to develop effective safeguards for reducing the impact of misinformation in trial contexts."