In a welcome development the Standing Committee of Attorneys – General have endorsed a model provisions for suppression and non publication orders.

Of particular interest is:

an online register will be established to improve the dissemination of information about suppression orders and provide for the distribution of details on a national scale; and

a register which will be a national ‘first point of contact’ with courts and tribunals providing basic data about whether a suppression order has been made in a particular case and relevant contact information enabling interested parties to make further enquiries.

Richard Ackland has an interesting piece (coincidentally) in today’s SMH on a speech given by David Levine, former New South Wales Supreme Court justice and general doyen of defamation law.

Janet Albrechtson has a reasonble political antena. For that I respect her.  When she steps out and starts talking philosophy she is a red meat eating conservative of fairly unsubtle tone.  Her take on civil liberties is High Tory and sniffy at individual rights. So I was on red alert when I read the banner headline South Park gag makes a mockery of freedom of expression. I was expecting an attack on free speech for the sake of western values etc… Don’t join the bad guys… The liberal self loathing intellectuals blah blah..

But the banner is total nonsense.  It has nothing Read the rest of this entry »

It is difficult to overestimate the impact of Orwell on satire.  Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty Four are clear,unequivocal and beautifully written clarion calls against totalitarianism.  If one was to read only two authors to gain an appreciation of how to write clear prose those individuals would be Ernest Hemingway and George Orwell.  Their prose is sparse and direct.  Their words dance on the page. Unlike the overblown sludge that is pushed through the processor.  I have additional respect for Orwell because Read the rest of this entry »

Making an application to re instate a proceeding which was struck out because of non compliance with court orders is often a grinding experience.  Such applications are generally made in the teeth of vigorous opposition notwithstanding the reluctance of courts to shut out litigants.  The issue in Re Saeco Australia Pty Ltd was whether leave was required on an appeal from the Associate Justice under Rule24.06 and the exercise of discretion.

FACTS

On 11 November 2008, Efthim AsJ dismissed theproceeding on the application of the first defendant (“SIG”) pursuant r 24.02 because of the failure of the plaintiffs to comply with orders of the Court for the discovery of documents.  On 2 December 2009 Efthim AsJ set aside order for dismissal on the plaintiffs’ application made pursuant to r 24.06.   SIG appealed the order made under r 24.06.

Leave required

The Plaintiff argued that SIG needed leave to appeal because the proceedings was under Read the rest of this entry »

The National Human Rights Consultation was a deeply flawed process.  Frank Brennan took the Committee around Australia and got plenty of air time.  But the process was so predictable.  The GetUP crew and pro charter people organised mass mail ins giving the impression that there was huge support for a Charter of Rights. But it was so obvious that it lost impact.  Their excitement  about the effectiveness of the Charter model surprised me.  It is an anaemic and ineffective model. On the other side the shrill and hysterical write ups by the Australian and burnt offerings by conservative columnists tended to the apocalyptic.  The obsession about “unelected judges” subverting the Parliament became embarrassing, especially when falling from the pen of lawyers.  Did the concept of the common law escape their attention.  And did they avert their eyes from the somehow miraculous operation of the judiciary in the American context.

The Federal Attorney General’s response to the Brennan Report is as insipid as the process.  No Charter of Rights, no bill of rights but an Australian Human Rights Framework.  Sounds good.  But less impressive in practice.  It is, in the AG’s words: Read the rest of this entry »

Today is the centenary of the death of Samuel Langhorne Clemens – the incomparable Mark Twain.  There are so many sites devoted to him, his quotes and travels that I can’t possibly do justice to him.

Along with George Orwell and Ernest Hemingway he is my literary hero.  A master of the written word and no respecter of tradition.  That is as high a praise as I can give anyone.

Huckleberry Finn is the quintessential perfect American novel.  When I read it in Year 10 I knew I was experiencing something special.  I have returned to it every couple of years and get something new every time.  Next to Hemingway at his best it is the most effective prose I have read.

Where Mark Twain soars is his ability to skewer the pompous and satirises the rest.  In this time of over earnest chest beating, political correctness in its current guise and bleating about morals and standards we are desperately in need of another Twain.

Vale Mark Twain.

Something is definitely off in Lower Merion school district.  It is located in Philidelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.  Some genius(s) in the school system installed peeping tom technology on students’ lap tops which then took more than 56,000 images of students using the lap tops at school and home.  The Guardian has run  story on today.  As usual the dopes who purpertrated this gross invasion of privacy picked a bizarely inappropriate response to deal with a mundane problem, lap tops going missing. Putting aside whether that was a smart way of dealing with the problem the program was activated on lap tops which were not stolen, missing or otherwise being used in an inappropriate manner.

It gets better.  The officials outed themselves when one confronted a student about supposed drugs he had in his bedroom.  Turns out the drugs were sweets.  The obvious querry is “How do you know what is in my room>”  Next port of call, a lawsuit.  In the Australian context the Listening Devices Act is the only real option however I think there would be scope to rely on nuisance or trespass coupled with a breach of confidence in Giller v Proscepets.  It might be a stretch but the law is developing.  All the more reason to have a proper statutory breach of privacy cause of action.

Two decisions of the Supreme Court last week, provide a very detailed and useful analysis regarding applications to set aside a subpoena and a summonses.  In Burchell & Anor v Hill & Ors a non party sought to set aside a subpoena issued under Rule 42A.01.    In Re Bill Express Limited (in liq) , the applicant, appealing from a decision of Gardiner AsJ,  sought to set aside a liquidator’s summons for production.

Burchell & Anor v Hill & Ors

Facts

The plaintiff issued a subpoena to the National Australia Bank Limited, a non party. The NAB objected to Read the rest of this entry »