Aussie Lawyer Blog

Category: Legal Advice

  • Australia’s involvement in transitional crime investigations need reform, says ABA and ALC

    The Australian government has been urged by the Australian Bar Association and The Law Council of Australia to put restrictions on the country’s contribution regarding transitional crime investigations that could lead in harsh executions like death penalty. In addition, they have said that in order to prevent authorities from providing information to foreign countries in cases that could lead to death penalty, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 needed some reform. The legal professional bodies said that the current practice do not comply with Australia’s “absolute opposition” to capital punishment in a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Trade, Defence and Foreign Affairs, which was held last month.

    The submission stated that the death penalty has not been shown to combat crime; hence it is inhuman and cruel. It also stated that the Australian Federal Police can be relieved of their burden of making such complex death issues and tough decisions in life if the legislative reform would be put in place by the government. In addition, the submission entails that between 2009 and 2014; most of the 1,847 names that AFP provided to foreign police included investigations for drug offences in countries that supported the death penalty. However, AFP denied at least three requests that needed assistance in cases that could lead to serious executions. According to the submission, while the AFP keeps on approving the vast majority, this also shows that they are somehow exercising discretion.

    The submission made by ABA and ALC questions whether this is the best approach putting in mind Australia’s position in opposing the death penalty. It also argues that a person cannot be extradited to face the death penalty as it is provided for under the Extradition Act 1988. Also, in the submission, ABA and LCA argue that there is no “solid difference” between helping with an investigation that may lead to that outcome and sending a person to face the death penalty directly. While arguing that Australia is in a good position to be a leading state actor in the Asia-Pacific region, the legal professional bodies’ submission highly promotes government strategies towards convincing other countries to do away with capital punishment.

    Between 2009 and 2013, nine countries including Yemen, the US, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, China and Bangladesh carried out executions every year, while Australia ditched the death penalty for good in 1967. As a matter of fact, China alone executed more than 1,000 people in 2014. However, the good news is that some of the countries have started shying away from the bad practice while others are putting strategies on how to abolish the death penalty.

  • South Australia Law Society may introduce minimum quotas for their male and female representatives

    During its upcoming AGM, the SA Law Society will vote whether it is necessary to introduce minimum quotas for male and female representatives. Therefore, the Law Society will set a record as the first Law Society in Australia to introduce quotas on its executive and council. However, that will happen if the proposal succeeds on 26th October when they will be holding their annual general meeting. As a matter of fact, the current situation is that you will find one female out of seven in the executive; hence the majority of the Law Society Representatives are male. The amendment has been put in place to see the number of female Law Society Representatives increase to 2 out of seven on the executive and 9 out of 32 on the council if it gets approved.

    There are currently seven women out of the 14 metropolitan council members. In addition, the amendment is expected to embrace the 50-50 gender balance and this applies only to the sixteen metropolitan members. You should take note that the sixteen of the council positions are kept aside for ex-office, junior and country members. Anna Jackson, who happens to be the chair of the Gender Equity Working Group at the SA Law Society, spoke with Aussie Lawyer Blog arguing that the proposal involved little or no mental effort. She said that throughout the 135 years, there has only been one single instance where more than one woman was compromised by the Law Society. In addition, she said that in the history of the Law Society, there have only been three female presidents.

    As a matter of fact, the number of female graduates in South Australia has increased since more than a half of the Law Society members are women and this has seen the percentage jump up to 70 percent. However, it has been hard to produce an agreed position to members given that the proposal has faced vigorous opposition within the Law Society of Southern Australia. Instead, a paper produced by the council was used to put into details the arguments for and against the proposal. “When one considers our practical effects, then I don’t believe the proposed changes will actually be that controversial,” said Ms Jackson.

    With positions already being allocated for country members, including law school deans and young lawyers, the paper supporting the quotas argues that there are no new reserved positions. The paper states that there is no suggestion that the incumbents have taken a position from a more deserving member of the society; hence these categories are not meritorious. As demonstrated by the strong and active women representation in the Metropolitan category, the paper which is against this proposal argues that genders are already treated equally in the selection process. Recently, the Victorian government committed to 50 per cent quotas for female public board members, magistrates and judges. On the other hand, Rocky Perrotta, the president of the Law Society, said that members hold a range of views about quotas. The SA Law Society president also said that they have shown their commitment to gender diversity and equity in the legal profession regardless of what will come out at the AGM.

  • 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.

  • 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.