“In the Law Council’s view, mandatory sentencing laws are inherently arbitrary and limit an individual’s right to a fair trial by preventing judges from imposing an appropriate penalty based on the unique circumstances of each case.”
lawcouncil.au/media/news/y...

300—Use of mobile phones (1) The driver of a vehicle must not use a mobile phone while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked, unless (a) the phone is being used to make or receive an audio phone call and the body of the phone— (i) is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle while being so used; or (ii) is not secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle and is not being held by the driver, and the use of the phone does not require the driver, at any time while using it, to press any thing on the body of the phone or to otherwise manipulate any part of the body of the phone; or

(4) In this rule— affixed to, in relation to a vehicle, includes forming part of the vehicle; audio phone call does not include an email, text message, video call, video message or other similar communication; body, in relation to a mobile phone, means the part of the phone that contains the majority of the phone's mechanisms; held includes held by, or resting on, any part of the driver's body, but does not include held in a pocket of the driver's clothing or in a pouch worn by the driver; mobile phone does not include a CB radio or any other two-way radio;

use, in relation to a mobile phone, includes any of the following actions by a driver— (a) holding the body of the phone in her or his hand (whether or not engaged in a phone call), except while in the process of giving the body of the phone to a passenger in the vehicle; (b) entering or placing, other than by the use of voice, anything into the phone, or sending or looking at anything that is in the phone; turning the phone on or off; operating any other function of the phone. For South Australia, in addition to this rule, see regulation 44 of the Road Traffic (Road Rules-Ancillary and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2014.

Which applies to rule 300 of the Australian Road Rules (SA).
www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislatio...

43B- -Use of mobile phone vehicle; or rule For the purposes of rule 300 (Use of mobile phones) and the definition of use in that use, in relation to a mobile phone, includes any of the following actions by a driver— (a) holds the body of the phone (whether or not engaged in a phone call), except while in the process of giving the body of the phone to a passenger in the vehicle or

(b) enters or places, other than by the use of voice, anything into the phone, or sends or looks at anything that is in the phone; or (c)turns the phone on or off; or (d)operates any other function of the phone.

The expanded definition of ‘use’ is set out under r 43B of the Road Traffic (Road Rules—Ancillary and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2014 (SA):
www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislatio...

'I was quite shocked': Drivers in Adelaide receive fines, demerit points for resting phones on laps Mobile detection cameras have so far caught thousands of drivers using their phones illegally in Adelaide. But some have discovered you might still be doing the wrong thing, even if you are not touchi...

“The Road Rules Amendment Regulations have broadened the definition of 'use' to circumstances where a mobile phone is being held, including in the driver’s lap”
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12...

A decade-long study reveals concerning trend of young women committing online sexual offences New research appears to have uncovered a large concentration of young women engaging in harmful online sexual behaviours.

New research appears to have uncovered a large concentration of young women engaging in harmful online sexual behaviours.

Former DPP breached duty of disclosure Last week, Fullerton J (VSC) handed down her decision in the Tony Mokbel matter (related to the Lawyer X scandal). Fullerton found Justice John Champion breached his duty of disclosure while VIC DPP, as he was told about Nicola Gobbo's (Lawyer X) previous informer status in 2012, but failed to disclose this to her clients, including Mokbel.

A judge has returned to hearing criminal matters after receiving mentoring NSW District Court Judge Robert Newlinds has returned to hearing criminal matters after receiving mentoring from former NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst. The return follows a scathing report from the Judicial Commission of NSW, which found that it was inappropriate for Newlinds to hear State criminal matters for the foreseeable future and that Newlinds’ actions in a matter were “borderline” for a referral to parliament for removal from office.

The Environmental Defenders Office faces a $9m indemnity costs bill The FCA has ordered the EDO to pay $9m in costs to Santos after a failed legal challenge to Santos’ Barossa offshore gas project. Last year, Charlesworth J found that the actions of an EDO lawyer and another, considered as a whole, “constituted a form of subtle coaching.”

Here's the legal buzz from past week.

Good read: ‘Could “Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy” solve the mystery of the Umina Beach jawbone?’
www.theaustralian.com.au/weekend-aust...

And... here's my post on why I don't think AI entities can ever be treated as responsible agents anything that is recognisably a system of criminal laws. criminaljusticetheoryblog.wordpress.com/2024/11/29/w... Comments/reactions welcome!

Is there an #saparli starter pack or some such out here? Struggling to find any Adelaideans here, and I'm sure they exist.... or do they?

'We are determined to prove you wrong': South Australia's Voice to Parliament makes first address As SA's Voice to Parliament delivered its historic first speech, some are calling for faith in its ability to create meaningful change. But critics say they are not opposed to axing the body altogethe...

Presiding Member Leeroy Bilney delivers the inaugural address of South Australia’s First Nations Voice to Parliament.
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11...

For professional degrees such as Law this is a major concern. We don't want to send lawyers out into the world without the necessary knowledge and skills.

So, in my undergrad unit, Public International Law, 100% of the assessment comprises invigilated pen and paper exams.

Love it!

Held, by Kourakis CJ, Bleby JA and Stein AJA agreeing, dismissing the Respondent’s applications: 1. The preservation of a person’s personal or professional reputation is a consideration exogenous to the determination of whether it is appropriate to grant a suppression order pursuant to s 69A of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) or necessary otherwise to close the Court to the public.

⚖️ Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner v Belperio
(No 2)[2024] SASCA 133 www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/view...

Australian litigators - what, if any, legal presumptions have you found most useful in practice? I have a chapter on them in the book, and propose to deal individually with those that still have modern utility, including the following. Any of these particularly important to you? Any I've missed?

Presumption of mens rea. But I’m not sure this fits with the presumptions you’re writing about?

Interesting study from the Property Law course at Griffith University. Does in-person attendance correlate with higher marks? TL;DR maybe a little, but *engagement* is likely to be more important for student performance than *attendance*. #legaled
ler.scholasticahq.com/article/1236...

Screen shots of the speech. Full text available via the link.

Media release — ‘ACT Bar Association concerned that juries in sexual assault trials may be perceived as not believing the complainants' allegations’ #auslaw
mailchi.mp/1d7181fa817c...

“The ACT Bar Association is concerned that there may be a perception, based upon recent comments attributed to the ACT Chief Justice... that juries in sexual assault trials are getting it wrong because they do not believe the allegations made by complainants”
www.theaustralian.com.au/business/leg...

Here is a brief background to @austlii.edu.au. AustLII provides a comprehensive integrated collection of Australian legal information, enabling effective free and anonymous access to law for the community. It contains over 1,000 databases of full-text primary and secondary legal materials. AustLII:

Criminal Law Starter Pack #auslaw
go.bsky.app/2LUhDo5

Corrupt Victorian police officer jailed after faking DNA results in drug squad investigation A former Victoria Police officer is jailed for three years after faking DNA and handwriting test results while working in the drug squad.

“Corrupt police misconduct, as yours was, has significant social consequences. It undermines public confidence in the police force” —Judge Cahill, Vic County Court
www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11...

That funny feeling in Division 105A of the Criminal Code: Benbrika and the INSLM Review — Australian Public Law Samuel Naylor On 19 December 2023, Abdul Nacer Benbrika was released from custody after being detained for the best part of 20 years. He was released after Hollingworth J of the Victorian Supreme Cou...

New today on AUSPUBLAW: Samuel Naylor critically examines Division 105A of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, in light of the INSLM’s 2023 report and Hollingworth J’s judgment in Benbrika v AG [2024]: www.auspublaw.org/blog/2024/11...

Shout out to legal academics in Australia: I’ve started a Starter Pack, let me know if you would like to be added or removed. Your suggestions most welcome go.bsky.app/A9tXyKu

This image is a screen shot of the opening two paragraphs of the case, which reads: MCCONNELL V ALBANESE [2024] SASCA 131 Court of Appeal: Civil LIVESEY P. Introduction 1. By a claim filed on 1 October 2024 the applicant sues the respondent, the Prime Minister of Australia, apparently in negligence, claiming that he caused the applicant injury and harm. He relies on various provisions of the Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA). Confusingly, the applicant also relies on various provisions of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The applicant seeks default judgment. 2. The claim is, with all respect, nonsensical and alleges that the respondent acted as co-conspirator and principal offender. The applicant contends that he is the only person on earth to have the type of brain that he has and that all other people have a technologically advanced brain which, he says, is a human rights violation causing injury "as well as a tool used in conjunction with the Respondent delivering a form of torture upon the Applicant".

⚖️ McConnell v Albanese [2024] SASCA 131 @austlii.edu.au
www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/view...

@austlii.edu.au has joined the blue butterfly. We will maintain our Twitter feed for a while but will seek to increase our presence here.

“I don't think that it is helpful to speculate on the reasons for a jury's decision when there is no suggestion that they have not complied with their obligations to determine the matter on the evidence before them” — Arthur Moses SC #auslaw
www.theaustralian.com.au/business/leg...

How a dictionary derailed a Sydney criminal trial The book was discovered by two court officers cleaning a jury room in Sydney. The response from the judge was swift.

How a dictionary derailed a criminal trial, and other tales of juror misconduct. www.smh.com.au/national/nsw... #auslaw