Gray on 'An Adverse View of Adverse Possession'

 Professor Anthony Gray of the USQ School of Law and Justice has published a new article titled 'An Adverse View of Adverse Possession'.  The article appears in Volume 96(1) of the prestigious Australian Law Journal.  Here is the abstract:

"The doctrine of adverse possession, under which a trespasser to property belonging to another might ultimately become the legal owner of it, continues to be applied in Australian and United Kingdom courts. Though it may have made sense centuries ago, it has become increasingly difficult to justify the doctrine. It has been stridently criticised by the judiciary and academy. It appears at odds with the law's general reluctance to permit individuals to profit from wrongdoing, and the Torrens system of title by registration. This article critiques the doctrine, suggesting significant reform is necessary."

Call for Papers: "USQ Colloquium on Religious Freedom, Sexuality, and Gender Identity"

 Call for Papers
Religious Freedom, Sexuality and Gender Identity

Recent events, including the introduction of the Human Rights Amendment Bill 2022, have placed the

interaction between sexuality, gender and religious belief at the centre of public attention. 

The debate surrounding this measure takes place within a broader conversation on acceptance of LGBTIQA+ communities, religious freedom, and the role of discrimination law in our society.

The Colloquium: The Law, Religion, and Heritage Research Program Team in the University of Southern Queensland is hosting a scholarly colloquium on Religious Freedom, Sexuality, and Gender Identity.

Date: Friday 28 October 2022

Venue: USQ Toowoomba Campus | Q Block | Q501 and Q502 (physical attendance is warmly encouraged, but a Zoom option will be available)                                                        

Keynote Speakers:  Professor Patrick Parkinson and Professor Anthony Gray          

Invitation: At the colloquium, academics are invited to provide scholarly presentations that address the intersection of sexuality, gender identity, and religious belief in a legal context.

What is required to participate? Presentations should be 15-20 minutes in duration, with time for questions to follow. Presentations must be supported by a completed paper or work-in-progress suitable for distribution to other participants. The opportunity to contribute to a special issue of the Australian Journal of Law and Religion may become available after the colloquium.

Are you interested in contributing? Please register your interest in presenting at the colloquium by contacting Dr Jeremy Patrick jeremy.patrick@usq.edu.au  Please include a CV and a brief abstract of the planned paper (100-250 words). 

Expressions of interest should be submitted by 28 August 2022.

The University of Southern Queensland is committed to the values of diversity, multiculturalism, and gender equity by fostering an inclusive environment that embraces difference and supports, values, and respects the unique perspectives and approaches of all individuals.  Please visit https://www.usq.edu.au/about-usq/values-culture/diversity-inclusion for more information.

Hemming on 'Illegally or Improperly Obtained Evidence: Time to Reform s 138 of the Uniform Evidence Legislation?'

 Associate Professor Andrew Hemming of the USQ School of Law and Justice has published a new article titled 'Illegally or Improperly Obtained Evidence: Time to Reform s 138 of the Uniform Evidence Legislation?'  The article appears in 31(2) of the Journal of Judicial Administration.  Here is the abstract:

"Section 138 of the uniform evidence legislation deals with the discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence, and has its origins in the well-known judgment of Stephen and Aickin JJ in Bunning v Cross. Section 138 prevents the admission of improperly or illegally obtained evidence ‘unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained’. Thus, unlike the common law, s 138 places the onus of proof on the Crown to justify the admission of improperly or illegally obtained evidence, a situation this article argues should be reversed. The balancing exercise is undertaken through an examination of a non-exhaustive list of matters to be taken into account by the court as set out in s 138(3)(a)-(h). This article will analyse the list of matters in s 138(3)(a)-(h) with a view to considering whether the list should be prioritised in some form, given that jurisdictions such as New South Wales have attempted to influence the balancing exercise by introducing legislation that confers a right of appeal on the Director of Public Prosecutions against an evidentiary ruling that substantially weakens the prosecution case: s 5F(3A) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). In particular, in light of animal welfare cases such as Lenah Game Meats and Kadir v The Queen, there will be a focus on the matter set out in s 138(3)(h), namely, ‘the difficulty (if any) of obtaining the evidence without impropriety or contravention of an Australian law’. Finally, the interaction between s 138 and s 90 Discretion to exclude admissions will be considered, given that s 90 is effectively a residual fairness discretion to exclude evidence."

Martin on 'Is sustainability classified as law in Australia?'

 Dr Rhett Martin, a Senior Lecturer in the USQ School of Law and Justice, has published a new article titled 'Is sustainability classified as law in Australia?'.  The article appears in Volume 167 of Precedent, a publication of the Australian Lawyer's Alliance.  Here is the abstract:

"Australians embrace sustainability as a concept that sounds worthwhile and may induce actions that help the environment, but what exactly does this term mean, and how does it apply in Australia?"

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."