Reich on 'Making Desistance Recognisable: How Ex-offenders Can Signal Their Desistance from Crime to Employers by Strategic Design'

Dr Suzanne Reich, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice, has published a new article titled 'Making Desistance Recognisable: How Ex-offenders Can Signal Their Desistance from Crime to Employers by Strategic Design'.  The article appears in Volume 20 of the British Journal of Criminology.  Here's the abstract:

"One of the primary concerns employers hold about hiring an ex-offender is the potential reoffending risk they pose. However, criminological literature shows that an ex-offender may be able to mitigate employers’ concerns by signalling their desistance from crime. Less understood is how ex-offenders can signal their desistance to (a) make desistance recognizable and (2) communicate desistance signals that employers value. This article draws on the results from the second phase of an Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods study with a sample of Australian employers who participated in semi-structured interviews (n = 43). The findings show desistance signals can be communicated to employers via strategic design. These findings along with the theoretical and policy implications are then discussed."

Timoshanko on ‘Could Existing Anticruelty Laws Ban Whip Use in Horse Racing?’

Dr Aaron Timoshanko, a Senior Lecturer in the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice, has published a new article titled 'Could Existing Anticruelty Laws Ban Whip Use in Horse Racing?'  The article appears in Volume 43(1) of the Adelaide Law Review.  Here is the abstract:

"In the face of new scientific evidence suggesting horses experience pain with the use of padded whips in racing, this article considers whether the continued use of whips in racing could offend the existing anticruelty laws. In Australia, it is an offence to inflict ‘unreasonable’, ‘unnecessary’ or ‘unjustifiable’ pain or suffering on an animal. How reasonable, necessary or justifiable is the pain caused by padded whips for the purpose of human entertainment? Relying on the ‘modern’ approach to statutory interpretation and the application of the ‘always speaking’ approach, it is argued that a court could interpret ‘unreasonable’, ‘unnecessary’ or ‘unjustifiable’ to extend the anticruelty provision to new situations and developments, including new scientific knowledge. However, in respect of whip use in racing, other important constitutional and contextual considerations must also be taken into account when deciding if whipping inflicts ‘unreasonable’, ‘unnecessary’ or ‘unjustifiable’ pain. Namely, the potential consequences of a certain interpretation, the presumption against retrospective operation, and the doctrine of the separation of powers. In giving all considerations due weight, it is unlikely that any court would interpret whip use in racing as inflicting ‘unreasonable’, ‘unnecessary’ or ‘unjustifiable’ pain or suffering despite new scientific evidence suggesting the pain inflicted may be disproportionate."

Gray on 'Determining Whether an Employment or Independent Contractor Relationship Exists and the Relevance of Contractual Performance to its Interpretation'

Professor Anthony Gray of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice has published a new article titled 'Determining Whether an Employment or Independent Contractor Relationship Exists and the Relevance of Contractual Performance to its Interpretation'.  The article appears in Volume 50 of the Australian Business Law Review.  Here is the abstract:

"A recent High Court decision considered important questions regarding principles of contractual interpretation when actual performance differs from the form of the contract, and how a court should determine the true nature of a working relationship. On the former, a majority of the Court took a formalist view of contract interpretation; on the latter, a majority signalled a return to a kind of organisation test that earlier decisions had discarded. On the former, this position isolates Australian law from that pertaining in jurisdictions elsewhere. It is submitted the position of the second joint reasons is preferred, taking into account actual performance in interpreting the contract. It also defends the multi-factorial approach traditionally taken to questions regarding the true nature of a working relationship."

Hart & Timoshanko on 'Ready for a Reboot: Law Schools Need to Reboot and Upgrade the Law Curriculum Now to Better Meet the Impacts of Technology'

Professor Caroline Hart and Dr Aaron Timoshanko of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice have published a new article titled 'Ready for a Reboot: Law Schools Need to Reboot and Upgrade the Law Curriculum Now to Better Meet the Impacts of Technology'.  The article appears in Volume 15 of the Journal of Australasian Law Academics Association.  The paper can be found on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

"This paper investigates Australian legal education’s capacity to acknowledge and respond to the impacts of the increasing use of technologies aiding legal service delivery. While law academics are debating the extent of this impact, there are already new jobs with new titles requiring new skillsets, and these employment opportunities will go to the best-prepared graduates. Even within the current framework, law academics have the capacity to better equip graduates to succeed in this changing environment through leadership and engagement with the key players. The responsibility to lead this adapted legal education is best held by law schools carrying it out as a fiduciary role towards graduates rather than as a broker for broader tech-interests."

Gray on ‘Vanderstock v Victoria: Are “True” Consumption Taxes Forbidden to the States by Section 90 of the Australian Constitution?'

Professor Anthony Gray of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice has published a new article titled ‘Vanderstock v Victoria: Are “True” Consumption Taxes Forbidden to the States by Section 90 of the Australian Constitution?'  The article appears in Volume 44(4) of the Sydney Law Review.  Here is the abstract:

"The High Court of Australia will soon consider a constitutional challenge to recent Victorian legislation that imposes a fee on the use of a zero or lowemission vehicle. The challenge argues that such a fee is an excise tax, prohibited to the States by s 90 of the Australian Constitution. The Court will need to consider the current orthodoxy that a consumption tax is not an excise, and its longstanding interpretation of s 90. This column submits the High Court should extend the existing definition of excise to include true taxes on consumption. This would be most consistent with the view of the purpose of s 90 accepted by the High Court since 1949, and would remove an anomaly from existing law."

Martin on ‘The River as a Separate Legal Person: Implications for Sustainability and Governance’

Dr Rhett Martin, a Senior Lecturer in the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice, has published a new article titled 'The River as a Separate Legal Person: Implications for Sustainability and Governance'.  The article appears in Volume 39(2) of the Environmental and Planning Law Journal.  

Hemming on 'Evidence Law in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia'

 Associate Professor Andrew Hemming of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice has published the second edition of Evidence Law in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia (Thomson Reuters, 2022).  Here is the publisher's description:

"Evidence law in the three “common law” states of Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia is the prime focus of this book, highlighting their similarities and differences. Additionally the book compares and contrasts the evidence law of these states with the uniform evidence legislation.  

Each of the 12 chapters traverse key concepts, case law and legislation, with generous use of headings to guide readers in a logical and easy- to- read style. The publication is an excellent teaching tool and includes active learning questions and problem scenarios which can be discussed during evidence courses. The book is also a practical resource for busy legal practitioners who need to gain a quick understanding of particular evidentiary issues.

Specific features of this book included within the 12 Chapters are:

• Tables summarising the main common law judicial discretions governing exclusion of relevant evidence and the equivalent uniform evidence provisions.
• Special and vulnerable witnesses giving evidence - law and practice.
• Privileges of confidential communications, counselling, religious confessions, shield for journalist sources in Qld and SA, and parliamentary proceedings; public interest immunity in AB (a pseudonym) v CD (a pseudonym).
• Consideration of the propensity or similar fact cases of Hughes v The Queen and The Queen v Dennis Bauer (A Pseudonym); analysis of the rebuttable presumption for child sexual offences in s 97A for NSW.
• Legislation and cases as to when evidence of bad character of an accused is allowed; failure to adduce good character in Xu v The Queen; discussion of the High Court case of Pell v The Queen on the unreasonableness ground of appeal.
• When opinion evidence may be admitted from lay persons or ‘Ad hoc’ experts; differing  procedures and warnings which are required for admission of identification evidence.
• Discussion of discretion to exclude identification evidence in The Queen v Dickman.
• Full discussion and summary of the leading cases on hearsay, exceptions and implied assertions; when “res gestae” evidence is admissible as a hearsay exception or as original evidence.
• Judicial discretion to exclude a voluntary confession; confessions and failure to understand the caution; unfairness discretion in Sindoni v The Queen; distinction between formal and informal admissions; implied admissions in TWR v Western Australia; directions to the jury on lies and post offence conduct.
• Discussion of High Court case of Kadir and Grech v The Queen on illegally obtained evidence."