Aussie Lawyer Blog

Author: Joseph Craig

  • Anti-abortion activist loses his bid against being deported from Australia

    Troy Newman2

    Recently, anti-abortion activist Troy Newman found himself on the wrong side of the law when he decided to show consummate disregard for the Australian law. Troy lost a last minute bid to retain his stay in Australia and avoid his deportation but the high court found that he had went against the law, hence his stay in Australia wouldn’t be viewed as legal and just. The reason behind this is because Mr. Newman decided to travel into Australia despite his visa being cancelled. There were concerns that the visit of Troy Newman to Australia in regards to his “speaking tour” could incite community harm, hence the Australian authorities decided to revoke his visa. The US citizen was detained at Melbourne airport after landing in Australia, ready to carry on with his anti-abortion campaign.

    It was confirmed on Saturday by a spokeswoman for the Australian immigration minister, that Troy had departed Australia and took a flight back to the US. Shortly after arriving in Australia without a valid visa, Mr. Newman lost his bid in the high court against his deportation from Australia. As a matter of fact, this will see the controversial activist pay the commonwealth’s legal fees due to his conduct in regards to going against the law. Given the fact that he had traveled to Australia with knowledge that his visa had been revoked, Mr. Newman showed disregard for the Australian laws,” said Justice Geoffrey Nettle while making his decision in the high court in Melbourne on Friday. In addition, “he does not come to this court with clean hands,” said Nettle.

    On the other hand, the high court justice said that the campaigner was aware his visa was revoked when he decided to record a video of him being stopped at Denver airport in regards to his “illegal visa”. Nettle also said that before Mr. Newman decided to travel to Australia, the airline crew made an effort by trying to urge him to contact the Australian embassy. Troy Newman had “no right to treat it as nought despite disagreeing with the cancellation of his visa,” Nettle said. The justice said that Mr. Newman was “avidly and determinately” intent on travelling to Australia. In fact, “he is the author of his own predicament and misfortune,” said Nettle.

    After it emerged that Newman had advocated that abortion doctors in the US be tried as murders, which had a potential in leading them to execution, the immigration Authorities cancelled his visa on Tuesday 29 September 2015, just as he was about to fly out of the US to start a 10-day speaking tour in Australia on Thursday 1 October 2015. However, a member of the anti-abortion group that organised the public seminars, Mary Collier from Right to Life Australia, expressed her disappointment in regards to the high court’s decision. She told reporters in Melbourne that they were much looking forward to hearing Troy speak and champion his campaign in Australia.

    Conclusively, the rejection of Newman’s visa is nothing new because it followed few days after the revocation of the popular U.S. hip-hop star Chris brown’s visa, reason being that the artist’s history involving domestic violence could be viewed negatively by the Australian society. Following a spate of high-profile deaths, Malcolm Turnbull, the newly installed Australian Prime Minister has renewed efforts to fight domestic violence.

  • Increasing Demand for Property Lawyers in Australia

    Recently, there has been shortage of construction and property lawyers in Australia, particularly on the east coast. Hence this has put much pressure on firms that deal with cases involving property law, leaving them desperate for property lawyers. According to Richard Abbott, who is also the head of property at Holding Redlich, the construction and property sector has been busy since it got well-established in 2006. Richard also said that he is expecting the trend to continue in the next one year since the construction and property industry is experiencing tremendous growth which will commence for the next 12 months. “Obviously, with the differentials across the states, I think the construction and property sector will remain strong,” he said. “The lawyers that will be lucky to get a foot on government projects will remain busy and generally, the construction and property lawyers will have no time to waste, since they will be busy working on property cases here and there.”

    However, on the other hand, Mr. Abbott has raised an alarm to firms in Australia that property lawyers are inadequate hence they should not be fast in expanding their practices to handle legal matters in the construction and property industry. In his view, Richard thinks that the current talent pool was brought by the slowdown in the sector during the GFC limited. “The demand for property lawyers went down after the GFC, hence the construction and property industry automatically became quiet,” he said. “No one went into property and there was no much property activity for a long period.” Therefore, that’s the main reason why many firms in Australia are desperate for property lawyers while there are few lawyers with expertise in property law.

    According to Nick Holuigue, a development and property partner at Maddocks, the outlook is considered the same because they are also in need of property lawyers due to the busy market which is promising and booming. Mr. Holuigue also suggested that his firm is particularly on the search for lawyers who are ready to work with investors who are from foreign countries, including China and Singapore. It’s all about advising the foreign investors on how they can relate their business with the cultural differences that they might encounter in regards to the manner of doing business and their needs. “For instance, our law firm is hiring more lawyers who speak Chinese,” he said. “The reason behind this is because our team’s practice has a good number of property clients from overseas.”

    Another important factor that property lawyers need to understand is that they should be well-familiarised with the market knowledge and cross-border expertise in order to help clients who are not familiarised with the conditions in the local industry. In addition, it is important that they understand the designing investment structures that work internationally and the challenges faced by international investors. Also, they need to explain to the investors how the local market works, touching on the fundamentals of Australian real estate. This will help give the foreign investors a good insight of the local market and how the risks and returns look like.

  • New President Elected by the Law Society of WA

    Once again, the Law Society of Western Australia has elected a new President. The new President in office is none other than Elizabeth Needham. She will serve as president of the Law Society of Western Australia until 31 December 2015. Mrs. Needham was elected on Tuesday 8 September 2015 at a meeting held by the Law Society Council. Since the resignation of Mathew Keogh in August, Elizabeth Needham had been serving as the Acting President of the Law Society.

    The position of Senior Vice President has been taken by Alain Musikanth. On the other hand, the position of Treasurer was taken by Marie Botsis while the position of Vice President was claimed by Hayley Cormann. All the above posts were determined by the Law Society Council. The elected officials will serve at the Law Society in their specified posts till 31 December 2015. Mrs. Needham said that she was delighted and honoured to be sworn in office as the Law Society’s new President.

    The new President also said that she is looking forward to utilising her skills in representing the Western Australia legal industry. In addition, she will continue working hard towards ensuring that she gives her best on behalf of all the Law Society members. Elizabeth Needham specialises in the legal areas of administrative law, human rights, crime, and family law. She practises from Francis Burt Chambers as a barrister. The new Law Society President worked at Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions as a Principal Legal Officer specialising in complex commercial prosecutions and at Department of Consumer Protection as Director of Legal and Prosecution. She also contributed positively while working in legal aid and community legal centres. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Needham has been practising for over 20 years.

    In addition, Elizabeth Needham has been actively involved in a number of Women Lawyers of Western Australia Committees while she was still serving as the President of the Society by then. The Society’s Committees that she has actively contributed to include: Women Lawyers Committee/Joint Law Society, Human Rights Committee, Law Summer School Committee and the Education Committee. Therefore, Mrs. Needham has been of great help to the Western Australia legal profession. She is expected to continue unleashing her potential in the legal industry especially now that she has officially been elected as the Law Society’s new President.

    The Law Society of Western Australia is a non-profit organisation that is rated as the peak professional organisation for lawyers in Western Australia. It is dedicated to representing its members whose number is estimated to be more than 3500. Given its position as a respected contributor and leader on the rule of law, access to justice, and law reform, the Society has generally improved the legal industry. In fact, in Western Australia, the Society has been widely acknowledged by the community, government and the legal profession.

  • Lawyers Urged to Update Judges on Social Media Trends

    It is important for all lawyers to take note that not all judges are familiarised with social media trends. Hence, it is upon their duty to guide judges accordingly on cases involving social media. Many judges find it hard to interpret the terms used in various social media platforms. In fact, early this week, a former high court judge Dyson Heydon’s admitted that he doesn’t use email hence he was not up-to-date with the latest technological trends.

    However, Natallie Hickey from Owen Dixon Chambers West in Melbourne said that a few judges have started getting familiarised with the social media platform. “But they can’t be more familiarised as compared to staunch social media users who are well-acquainted with the culture and mechanisms used in different social media platforms.” Ms. Hickey said. She also said this does not mean lawyers should assume that judges are well-familiarised with social media trends as the other people who appear before them do.

    For instance, in defamation cases that occur through social media, lawyers are expected to explain into details what took place and the mechanisms used, shedding light on the pros and cons of social media. Hence, lawyers are expected to understand their audience in order to come up with extensive evidence. “The reason behind this is because ascertaining the impact of a message requires a lawyer to understand the influence and lifespan of each post in a given social media platform.” Ms. Hickey said.

    She continued by giving an example of a case whereby a judge may attribute a meaning to a tweet which may not actually be true or may not be there in real life. If the lawyer fails to explain to the judge what is involved or fails to provide a very detailed evidentiary explanation of how Twitter actually operates, then it will be very hard for the judge to interpret the case or arrive at a fair decision. A relevant case was brought before the court whereby two artists based in Melbourne were ordered by the court to pay $450,000. The order was made after they were charged with defaming a former gallery owner by incorrectly claiming that he had assaulted his staff sexually. They also called the man Hitler and he didn’t take that lightly. Although the trial judge took this matter very serious, the decision was quashed and the case was taken back to trial.

    All these issues clearly show that there is a process of education required along the way to help judges better interpret the law behind defamation and also gain a good understanding of the social media culture.

  • A New Light in Fighting Under-representation of Women Lawyers in Australia

    The issue of under-representation of women lawyers has been a growing trend in the Australian legal system for quite a long time. Due to this, the Victorian Women Lawyers has announced a mooting competition that will concentrate on empowering women lawyers. In a report released lately, it was stated that the practicing women in Victoria only constitute 27 percent. However, the good news is that this statistic is expected to increase upon the establishment of the Victorian Women Lawyers Warren Moot. When this initiative is put into practice, more women lawyers will be given an insight into a career at the Bar. This is because it aims to address the low numbers of Australian women involved with various advocacy roles.

    In addition, Victorian Women Lawyers convener Kirsten Adams said that they will work hand in hand with women lawyers in Australia, providing the forum for them to hone and test their potential. This will help empower them to get on their feet and also see more women lawyers participate in advocacy roles. In a supportive setting, the initiative has been endorsed by Marilyn Warren, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria. She believes that the mooting competition will be the best opportunity for women to improve their advocacy skills at the Bar. Chief Justice Warren also added that it is very rare to see women being given speaking roles and rare still to see women advocates appear before the Supreme Court.

    A reflective history has proven that women remain underrepresented when it comes to advocacy roles. As a matter of fact, the community is missing out on a valuable resource as long as the under-representation of women takes place. Practitioners should be encouraged to brief more women on the importance of taking up advocacy roles and give them the utmost support that they need.

    As a sponsor of the initiative, Maddocks partner Maria Marshall said that the firm is committed to hosting the semi-final after the first two rounds of the competition. She said that this is expected to break the trending pattern in the Australian legal industry. Ms Marshall also added that sometimes young women lawyers get challenged since they often leave the ‘counsel’ role to their male counterparts after slipping into the ‘instructing solicitor’ role during mooting competitions. Also, the Warren Moot looks forward to breaking the legal industry pattern by offering women the chance to improve their advocacy skills and help them grow professionally with high self-esteem.

    Round one of the mooting competition is expected to kick-off on 1st September and four law students or women will make up each of the mooting rounds. Finally, 14th October will be the date for the grand final and it is scheduled to take place at the Supreme Court of Victoria.

  • Tech-awareness regarding domestic violence cases

    The Legal Service Commission of South Australia says that lawyers should not shy away when it comes to fighting the use of technology which has lately promoted domestic violence. The commission also added that after being abused over social media, text and email, victims of domestic violence are increasingly seeking legal representation and advice from various professionals in the legal sector. They claim that most of the domestic violence issues brought before the commission are highly influenced by technology in one way or another. The Commission’s director, Gabrielle Canny, said that it is well-known that lawyers dealing with domestic violence cases clearly understand the influence of technology in many domestic violence cases.

    The commission’s director also added that they can’t keep their heads buried in the sand while technology keeps on altering and damaging the legal industry since the technological change is reshaping the way things used to run before. Hence lawyers must ensure that they are broadly familiarised with the different ways in which technology can be misused by perpetrators and they are not expected to be tech experts in order to do so. The good news is that there is sufficient information online to enlighten lawyers and victims regarding expression of domestic violence through technology.

    Therefore if the lawyers dig into this matter and understand the issues, then they can assist the victims of domestic violence with their tech-related challenges. As a matter of fact, many people fail to understand that they can sue those who abuse them through technological channels and that their cases involve domestic violence. On the other hand, to determine whether domestic violence is a factor in the case, lawyers should ensure that they ask their clients relevant questions regarding their personal circumstances. Also, they can ask on how the perpetrator is keeping tabs on the victim’s movements and how the perpetrator communicates with the victim.

    After asking all these questions, a lawyer should determine whether domestic violence through technology is an issue that needs to be addressed urgently. Conclusively, it is important for all Australians to have some knowledge on how to deal with the emerging trend of domestic violence through technology.

  • ABA urges review of the proposed Australian citizenship bill

    The Australian Bar Association has urged that the newly proposed citizenship bill be reviewed. According to the ABA, the new bill is said to be unfair to individuals that are linked to terrorist organizations since their citizenship can be revoked on grounds that it is unconstitutional. In their submission, the ABA has warned that the drafted bill provisions are too broad for the Allegiance to Australia Bill 2015. The submission was presented to the Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Security and Intelligence. Also, according to the ABA, the immigration minister is given the extraordinary power to bypass the courts entirely in giving practical effect to revoking of an individual’s citizenship, as stated under the proposed citizenship bill.

    Since the proposed changes for the citizenship bill intends to look down upon the court’s judicial powers to find out the truth and impose punishment for various criminal offenses, the ABA further argued that the new bill has all the reasons to be viewed as unconstitutional. Fiona McLeod, ABA’s president, said that an individual can only lose his or her citizenship if they have been convicted of a relevant offense by the Australian court of law, giving an example such as an act of terrorism directed at Australians. Currently, section 5 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, states that an individual’s citizenship can only be revoked if the person is claimed to have served in the armed forces of a country that is viewed as an enemy of Australia.

    However, this is not the case with the new citizenship bill or the anti-terrorism law, because it would see individuals who engage in terrorist-related conduct or provide their services to a declared terrorist organization be stripped of their citizenship. In addition, according to ABA’s submission, this new bill could relate to minor offenses, omissions, not leaving out unintentional acts, and could also apply to individuals whose terrorist-related conduct is unproven. The ABA’s president expressed her worries in the new citizenship bill, based on the concern that the rights of Australians claiming that the new bill could have their citizenship renounced unfairly in case they have had contact with terrorist organisations under duress; against their will, unintentionally or inadvertently or have committed minor offenses.

    She stated that it was clear that a government official must always make a determination that an offense has actually occurred, but the new bill proposes that citizenship is renounced automatically by the citizen’s conduct; hence the government’s bill uses a legal sleight of hand. Ms. McLeod continued with her statement saying that she was worried about the bill because it poses much threat to loyal Australian citizens who work for humanitarian organisations since they could be negatively affected by the new citizenship bill and even worse, lose their Australian citizenship.

    In conclusion, the Australian Bar Association believes that the new bill treats the Australian citizenship as protection against threats to the society; hence the new bill uses citizenship as a tool of punishment, which should not be the case. The ABA also said that the new bill’s approach would be counter-productive to de-radicalisation and social inclusion.

    *Disclaimer – Although some writers are, generally writers at Aussie Lawyer Blog are writers and not legal professionals. We endeavour to give the best information possible but this should never substitute proper legal advice from a registered and licensed legal representative. Aussie Lawyer blog and Bunting media group staff, associates and content creators accept no responsibility for any of your actions with or without information from this website. Please be sensible.