Timoshanko & Hart on ‘Teaching Technology into the Law Curriculum'

 Dr Aaron Timoshanko and Professor Caroline Hart of the USQ School of Law and Justice have published a new article titled 'Teaching Technology into the Law Curriculum'.  The article appears in Volume 13/14 of the Journal of the Australasian Law Academics Association.  Here is the abstract:

"The role technology plays in the legal profession is growing. It is, therefore, incumbent on legal educators to prepare law students for a profession that leverages current and emerging technologies, while mitigating potential risks. A desktop analysis was performed on all technology-focused courses offered at Australian and New Zealand law schools and at the top five universities in the United States of America and the United Kingdom to identify common themes and characteristics. The authors then share their experiences teaching a technology-focused course at a small regional university. The aim of this article is to stimulate greater discussion about how universities teach technology into the law curriculum, not whether such a course is needed."

Murray on 'A Lawyer by Any Other Name: The Restrictions on Unqualified Legal Practice in Australia’

 Dr Katie Murray, a Lecturer at the USQ School of Law and Justice, has published a new article titled 'A Lawyer by Any Other Name: The Restrictions on Unqualified Legal Practice in Australia'.  The article appears in Volume 95 of the prestigious Australian Law Journal.  Here is the abstract:

"This article examines the restrictions on engaging in legal practice in Australia, focusing on how the restrictions also apply to lawyers, who remain in good standing with the profession, but who no longer hold a current practising certificate. In doing so, it outlines jurisdictional differences; the tests that have been applied to determine what constitutes ‘legal practice’; and examines whether the restriction of lawyers can be justified against the dual considerations of public protection. In particular, I question whether placing lawyers in the same category as ‘laypeople’ is justified by the need to protect the public from ‘unlawful operators’ and argue that this may do a disservice to both lawyers and the public."

Gray on 'The Constitutional Validity of State Royalty Schemes and Profit-Based Schemes'

 Professor Anthony Gray of the USQ School of Law and Justice has published a new article titled 'The Constitutional Validity of State Royal Schemes and Profit-Based Schemes'.  The article appears in Volume 36(4) of the Australian Tax Forum.  Here is the abstract:

"This article considers the constitutional validity of state royalty schemes. The conventional wisdom is that such schemes are consistent with s90 of the Constitution. This article questions that orthodoxy. It also considers the constitutional position if states were to move to profit-based schemes."

Collins on 'A Snapshot of the Family Law Pathways Network Program: Working at the local Community level'

Professor Pauline Collins of the USQ School of Law and Justice has co-written a new journal article titled 'A Snapshot of the Family Law Pathways Network Program: Working at the local Community level'.  The article is co-written with India Bryce and Timothy Nugent and appears in Volume 34(2) of the Australian Journal of Family Law.  Here is the abstract:

"Since 2003, the Australian Attorney-General’s Department has funded Family Law Pathways Network (‘FLPN’) to provide professional assistance for separating families when navigating the legal and human support network maze. The FLPN serve in providing an assured access to information and necessary services in the family justice system. Thirty-three FLPN now operate across Australia. FLPN funding relies on annual government funding approval creating a fragile funding basis for their continued work. In response the FLPN has sought evidence to determine just how important their role is in the family domain. This article reports on an evidence-based research project that provides a snapshot of FLPN activities and their value to the local community across FLPN communities in Australia."

Burgess on 'The Philippine Competition Act Annotated'

 Rachel Burgess, an academic affiliated with the USQ School of Law and Justice, has co-edited (along with Amabelle Asuncion and Alain Charles Veloso) a new book: The Phillippine Competition Act Annotated.  The book is published by Rex Publishing.

Hemming on 'Reform of the Evidential Rules for Eyewitness Identification in the United States – Advice from the Antipodes'

Associate Professor Andrew Hemming of the USQ School of Law and Justice has published a new article titled 'Reform of the Evidential Rules for Eyewitness Identification in the United States--Advice from the Antipodes'.  The article appears in Volume 43(1) of the Houston Journal of International Law.  Here is the abstract:

"The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) in the United States comprise a number of short provisions that are set out in plain language and are largely free of technical terms. Rule 801 deals with exclusions from hearsay, and sub-section (d) deals with statements that are not hearsay. FRE 801(d)(1)(C) covers the situation where the declarant testifies about a prior statement, and the statement identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier. Eyewitness identification evidence is notoriously unreliable, and the courts apply the test enumerated in Manson v Brathwaite to determine the reliability of pre-trial eyewitness identification.

Manson identified a two part test where the first limb involves consideration of whether the police adopted a suggestive procedure pointing to the defendant as the perpetrator. If the procedure is satisfactory, then the identification evidence is admitted as there is no breach of due process. In the event the procedure is found to be suggestive, then the second limb applies and the court examines five factors to decide whether the identification is nevertheless admissible on the grounds of reliability. These five factors are: (1) the opportunity to view; (2) the degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the description; (4) the witness’ level of certainty; and (5) the time between the crime and the confrontation.

The Manson decision has been criticized and will be further considered here, but the focus of this article is to view the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence holistically from the voir dire to the judge’s summing up to the jury. Assuming that the evidence is admitted under either of the limbs set out in the Manson test, the next question is whether the evidence requires a warning to be given by the trial judge to the jury as to the dangers of convicting the defendant where eyewitness identification is the critical fact in issue and the mainstay of the prosecution’s case. In this regard, the evidential principles relating to eyewitness identification evidence in Australia (and to a lesser extent in England ) will be examined, with a view to making recommendations that the United States should adopt aspects of these principles, particularly the criteria triggering a warning from the trial judge to the jury."

Young on ‘Commentary on Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (judgment re-written by Marcelle Burns)’

Professor Simon Young of the USQ School of Law and Justice has published a ‘Commentary on Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria (judgment re-written by Marcelle Burns)’.  The piece appears in Indigenous Legal Judgments: Bringing Indigenous Voices into Judicial Decision Making (Routledge, 2021) edited by Nicole Watson and Heather Douglas.