Thursday, June 18, 2020

Discrimination on grounds of sex: Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia

›
It was most interesting, even amusing, to read the new definition of “sex” offered by the Supreme Court of the United States by a majority ...
Monday, May 04, 2020

COVID-19 lockdown: how far may you stray?

›
We are currently in level 3 lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. How far may we travel from our home or residence to get some...
Saturday, April 25, 2020

Stare decisis: contrasting judicial opinions in Ramos v Louisiana

›
In my  post   of 16 April I suggested that ascertaining the ratio of a multi-judge case can be entertaining. Who could have guessed how gre...
Thursday, April 16, 2020

Police retention and use of unlawfully obtained information: Smethurst v Commissioner of Police [2020] HCA 14

›
If the police wrongfully seize a cell phone and make their own copy of the information stored on it, can the owner of that information requ...
Tuesday, April 07, 2020

Unreasonable verdict and reasonable doubt

›
In  Pell v The Queen   [2020] HCA 12 (7 April 2020) the High Court made some important distinctions between fact-finders and appellate cou...
Friday, February 21, 2020

Money laundering, structuring, implications of Lordianto v The Queen [2019] HCA 39

›
Money laundering can be committed recklessly. When you add that fact to what you have learnt from  Lordianto v The Queen  [ 2019] HCA 39  (...
Thursday, February 06, 2020

Differing desirability: admission of improperly obtained evidence in New South Wales

›
Illegal video surveillance of animal cruelty, producing a series of recordings, followed by application for a search warrant, and then the ...
Sunday, December 22, 2019

On the evidence: the verdict in Lundy

›
Don’t let me fall into the trap of getting into an argument about the  Lundy  verdict. By verdict I mean the verdict reached by the Supreme...
Friday, December 20, 2019

Tempora mutantur nos et mutamur in illis - or do we?

›
Would the result in  Lundy v R   [2019] NZSC 152 have been the same if it had been determined under our current appeal provisions,  s 232 ...