Skepticlawyer mentioned this interesting case where the High Court is considering the constitutional validity of the Australian Military Court. (The transcripts for 22 Apr and 23 Apr 2009 are available on Austlii.)Why do we care?Well, constitutional validity of courts occasionally crops up even in our jurisdiction!In Kable v DPP (NSW) [1996] HCA 24; (1996) 189 …
Continue reading Teabagging begs questions of constitutional validity for courts
One of my enduring interests is how we might use technology in the court room to help us do our job better.Technology is a bit like fire: a good servant, but poor master. If we use it, we must use it because it helps achieve a better result. It's a means to an end, not …
We all know what the criminal standard of proof is, but what is it? What does it really mean?Try putting a percentage figure on it. We know that beyond reasonable doubt will be much higher than being just 50% sure, but how much higher? 70 or 80%? 90%, maybe? Why don’t we just dive in …
Edit: Another good discussion of Markarian's case can be found in the Newcastle Law Review. It was written by Ross Abbs a couple of years and approaches the case from a variety of angles.The irrelevance (or, perhaps more properly, the lack of utility) of but for sentences was affirmed in Dutton v The Queen [2011] …
Continue reading But for— sentences aren't grounds for appeal
Edit: Another good discussion of Markarian's case can be found in the Newcastle Law Review. It was written by Ross Abbs a couple of years and approaches the case from a variety of angles.The irrelevance (or, perhaps more properly, the lack of utility) of but for sentences was affirmed in Dutton v The Queen [2011] …
Continue reading But for— sentences aren’t grounds for appeal