Australian Consumer Law converter

Consumer law isn't a regular feature of criminal cases, but, I reckon this was an interesting find anyway.Thomson's (Law Book Co) have a free iPad and iPhone app, Australian Consumer Law Converter, which allows the user to view old Trade Practices Act provisions and link to their equivalents in the Australian Consumer Law.Even if you …

Continue reading Australian Consumer Law converter

And we’re back …

Edit: The Court of Appeal have handed down their decision in Kypri. See our discussion of it here. ... though, as it turned out, we never really went away. The 'vacation' proved an ideal opportunity for the Elucubrator to sing the praises of his new toy - ahem, tool. Welcome to many new readers who …

Continue reading And we’re back …

And we're back …

Edit: The Court of Appeal have handed down their decision in Kypri. See our discussion of it here. ... though, as it turned out, we never really went away. The 'vacation' proved an ideal opportunity for the Elucubrator to sing the praises of his new toy - ahem, tool. Welcome to many new readers who …

Continue reading And we're back …

Disclosure, adjournments and guilt — Part 2

In Part 1 of this post I discussed summary case-management and the requirements of disclosure by parties to a summary criminal prosecution, and the courts’ powers to accept or reject guilty pleas.The Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (“CP Act”) changes the old Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 Schedule 2 disclosure process a fair bit, but not necessarily …

Continue reading Disclosure, adjournments and guilt — Part 2

CW v The Queen [2010] VSCA 288: Court of Appeal rules on tests for coincidence evidence

Edit: In R v Ceissman [2010] NSWCCA 50, Latham J sets out the approach taken to coincidence evidence in NSW. CW v The Queen [2010] VSCA 288 went to the Court of Appeal as an interlocutory appeal from the trial judge's ruling, under s 295 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The accused was charged …

Continue reading CW v The Queen [2010] VSCA 288: Court of Appeal rules on tests for coincidence evidence