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."

Copley on 'A right to adequate housing: Translating “political” rhetoric into legislation'

Dr Julie Copley, a Lecturer at the University of Southern Queensland, has published a new article titled 'A right to adequate housing: Translating "political" rhetoric into legislation'.  The article appears in Volume 31 of the Australian Property Law Journal.  Here is the abstract:

"In Australia, calls for a statutory right to adequate housing predate the enactment of the current Australian human rights statutes, with recent recommendations made by a Victorian parliamentary committee and the Australian Human Rights Commission. In effect, the recommendations are for legislative processes translating the politics of homelessness and housing inadequacy, in an ongoing way, into practical statutory measures. To build a framework to inform and assist the legislative processes, this article analyses contemporary property theory, including about a right to adequate housing, and legal, political and constitutional theory directed to the positivisation of human rights. As the core of a right to housing is a place to live in security, peace and dignity, an essential component of a framework will be the functioning in Australian jurisdictions of human dignity, the source from which all other human rights are derived."

Zhao on 'Contemporary Australian Tort Law'

Dr Bob Zhao, a Senior Lecturer at the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice, has co-written a textbook titled Contemporary Australian Tort Law (Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2024).  Here is the publisher's description:

"Tort law is a dynamic area of Australian law, offering individuals the opportunity to seek legal remedies when their interests are infringed. Contemporary Australian Tort Law introduces the fundamentals of tort law in Australia today in an accessible, student-friendly way. This edition retains the logical coverage of key aspects of tort law and has been thoroughly updated to cover recent case law and legal developments. The chapter on defamation has been comprehensively updated to reflect recent amendments to uniform legislation and its application in common law. Self-assessment tools throughout the text encourage students to test and apply their knowledge of key concepts. These features include case questions and review questions throughout each chapter, as well as longer end-of-chapter hypothetical problems which consolidate students' application of key concepts to realistic contemporary scenarios. Written by a team of teaching experts, Contemporary Australian Tort Law is an engaging resource for students new to studying tort law."

Crowe on 'Human Rights in the Natural Law Tradition'

Professor Jonathan Crowe of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice has published a new paper titled 'Human Rights in the Natural Law Tradition'.  The paper appears as a chapter in an edited collection titled Beyond Classical Liberalism: Freedom and the Good (Routledge, 2024).  Here is the paper's abstract:

"This chapter explores the distinctive features of natural law approaches to explaining and defending human rights. Human rights are not a basic concept in the natural law outlook. Rather, they are subsidiary to the more fundamental notion of intrinsic human goods. Nonetheless, the natural law outlook offers a straightforward and compelling way of deriving human rights from intrinsic goods. This derivation proceeds by showing how goods generate reasons for action, which in turn produce duties toward others. These duties then correlate to rights.

The chapter elaborates and defends a specific version of the natural law argument for human rights outlined above. It then explores some advantages of the natural law approach to human rights, showing how it defuses criticisms of rights discourse advanced from both within and outside the natural law tradition. The priority of goods over duties, and duties over rights, in the natural law outlook offers an antidote to the individualistic and positional tendencies of rights claims in political arenas. It also helps to ensure that rights claims do not obscure or override the primary role of the common good in shaping political obligations."

Collins and Gray on 'SDCV v Director-General of Security: Procedural Fairness and the Ability to Decide a Matter Based on Secret Evidence Not Disclosed to a Party or their Legal Team’

Professor Pauline Collins and Professor Anthony Gray of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice have published a new article titled: 'SDCV v Director-General of Security: Procedural Fairness and the Ability to Decide a Matter Based on Secret Evidence Not Disclosed to a Party or their Legal Team’.  The article appears in Volume 98(1) of the Australian Law Journal.  Here is the abstract:

"With changes afoot in the judges sitting on the High Court later in 2023, this article addresses a hope for a future change enabling greater protection of fundamental rights of an individual to know the accusations and evidence against them. The decision in 'SDCV', by a slim majority of one, validated the challenged law in section 46(2) of the 'Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975' (Cth). This precluded the right of SDCV or his legal team from knowledge of the evidence against him. This article documents the decision and reasoning of the High Court in this case. It sets forth the basis for concern in such national security situations."

Hemming on 'Criminal Procedure in Australia'

Associate Professor Andrew Hemming of the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice has co-authored the third edition of Criminal Procedure in Australia (LexisNexis, 2024).  Here is the publisher's summary:

"This important book combines commentary with primary sources to provide a contextualised approach to the legal principles underpinning criminal procedure in Australia. It offers a unified and comprehensive analysis of the law relating to policing, criminal prosecutions, pretrial and trial issues, sentencing and criminal appeals. In addition, the book examines the extensive Commonwealth, state and territory legislation and case law in the fields of police investigation and Crown prosecutor’s powers and duties across all jurisdictions.

The third edition is fully revised and extensively updated, with:

• up-to-date cases on criminal procedure, including:
         o Pell v The Queen (HCA 2020: unreasonableness ground of appeal)
         o R v Rolfe (HCA 2021: police immunity)
         o Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Greenhalgh (NSWSC 2022: meaning of ‘to use such force as is reasonably necessary’)
         o Roy v O’Neill (HCA 2020: permission to enter upon premises)
         o Smethurst v Chief Commissioner of Police (HCA 2020: unlawful search)
         o Zhang v Commissioner of Police (HCA 2021: destruction or return of seized and copied material)
         o Bradley v Senior Constable Chilby (NSWSC 2020: prosecutor’s duty of disclosure)
         o Edwards v The Queen (HCA 2021: prosecutor’s duty of disclosure)
         o Nguyen v The Queen HCA 2020: prosecutor’s duty of fairness)
         o State of NSW v Robinson (HCA 2019: wrongful arrest)
         o GBF v The Queen (HCA 2020: right to silence)
         o McKell v The Queen (HCA 2019: judge’s summing up)
         o Hoang v The Queen (HCA 2022: juror misconduct)
         o Hofer v The Queen (HCA 2021: appeals)
         o Strbak v The Queen (HCA 2020: right to silence in sentencing)
• new legislation on police powers, bail and mandatory sentencing
• new commentary on legal principles and policy
• the latest data on rates of victimisation, police and prison detention, hyperincarceration of First Nations people and deaths in custody.

This comprehensive and accessible book is of practical assistance to practitioners, police, prosecutors and anyone involved or interested in the criminal prosecution process, while the contextualised and critical approach to legal doctrine provides academics, students and researchers with reliable guidance in this complex area.

Features
• Provides a principles approach to develop understanding of the area
• Contextual discussion supports student learning
• Comparative coverage across Australian Jurisdictions"