Placeholder Content Image

Lawyer warns drivers over little-known road rule with $2200 penalty

<p>While some say it's just "the Aussie way", one lawyer has warned against this common act that could cost you up to $2200. </p> <p>Speaking to <em>7NEWS </em>Astor Legal principal lawyer Avinash Singh, said that there has been a spike in motorists caught flashing their high beams on the road, to alert other drivers of police. </p> <p>“I’ve received an increased number of inquiries from people who have been caught flashing their high beams, warning oncoming drivers of police,” he said. </p> <p>“Most of my clients have been caught doing this by a mobile speed camera or an RBT, which they don’t realise can catch them out on this offence.”</p> <p>Drivers caught in the act could get an on-the-spot fine of $112 and one demerit point, and a maximum penalty of $2200.</p> <p>According to the Australian Road Rules, it is considered an unlawful use of headlights on high-beam. </p> <p>“It is an offence to drive on a road with high-beam headlights on if there is another vehicle in front, travelling in the same direction within 200m; or if there is another oncoming vehicle within 200m,” Singh said.</p> <p>“Similarly, road rules state that a driver must not use any light fitted to their vehicle to dazzle, or in a way that is likely to dazzle, another road user.”</p> <p>“It is arguable that flashing your headlights to warn of police would fall into the definition of ‘hindering police’ in the execution of their duty “</p> <p>Motorists on Reddit have described headlight flashing as representing “a camaraderie between motorists” and one even called it “the Aussie way”.</p> <p>But others have argued that the act could impact the safety of other drivers. </p> <p>“Traffic laws are meant to act as a deterrent for dangerous driving, flashing a fellow motorist has the same effect the ticket is meant to but with more immediate results. It should be widely encouraged,” one commenter wrote.</p> <p>“I feel it only changes the driver’s behaviour for a few seconds, but removes the deterrent of getting a fine. So it probably makes traffic, in general, more dangerous,” another said.</p> <p><em>Image: Shutterstock</em></p> <p> </p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

"Find that car": Mother of fallen young lawyer speaks out

<p>Mitch East, a vibrant 28-year-old lawyer from New Zealand, lost his life on Sunday in an alleged hit-and-run accident that has sparked a desperate plea from his grieving mother and a heartfelt outcry from those who knew him.</p> <p>Debra East, now in Sydney to grapple with the unimaginable loss of her only child, stood on the roadside where Mitch's life was abruptly taken away. In an emotional <a href="https://7news.com.au/news/find-that-car-mother-of-lawyer-mitch-east-killed-in-sydney-hit-and-run-shares-desperate-plea-as-tributes-flow-c-14013341" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview with 7NEWS</a>, she expressed her shattered state, saying, "I'm broken. He was my only child... I died too, on Sunday, with him."</p> <p>The pain of a mother losing her child in such a sudden and senseless manner is unfathomable, and her plea to find the perpetrator echoes through the community.</p> <p>Mitch's untimely demise occurred as he stepped out of an Uber onto Fletcher St, just metres away from his home, in the early hours of the morning. It is believed that he was <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/police-investigate-after-young-lawyer-killed-in-cowardly-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener">struck by a car</a>, leaving him with critical injuries that tragically proved fatal. Despite the efforts of emergency responders, Mitch passed away at the scene.</p> <p>The circumstances surrounding Mitch's death point to a hit-and-run incident, with CCTV footage capturing <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/police-investigate-after-young-lawyer-killed-in-cowardly-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a white Subaru</a> driving on the street shortly after the accident.</p> <p>Debra East, grappling with grief and disbelief, voiced her anguish, questioning how the driver could have failed to see her son and pleading for assistance in locating the vehicle.</p> <p>“I got up early hours of the morning today and stood on the side of the road to try to understand how they couldn’t have seen him as they were driving up," she said. “I just need you to help the police find that car. Not that it will bring him back to me.”</p> <p>NSW Police Inspector Josh Hogan condemned the act as cowardly, urging the driver to come forward and take responsibility for their actions.</p> <p>Anyone with information about the death is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.</p> <p><em>Images: GoFundMe | NSW Police</em></p>

Family & Pets

Placeholder Content Image

Police investigate after young lawyer killed in "cowardly act"

<p>The tranquility of a Sunday morning was shattered for residents of Tamarama in Sydney's eastern suburbs, as news emerged of a tragic incident involving a young lawyer.</p> <p>Mitch East, a 28-year-old legal professional, was discovered critically injured on a street just metres away from his home, only to succumb to his injuries shortly after. What makes this loss even more devastating is the suspicion that his death was a result of a hit and run.</p> <p>The details of the incident paint a picture of a night that turned fatal in the early hours of February 17. Mitch East had been enjoying a night out and had opted for a responsible choice by catching an Uber home. However, he was allegedly struck by a passing car on Fletcher St, leaving him with fatal injuries.</p> <p>Detectives from the Crash Investigation Unit are now leading inquiries into the circumstances surrounding Mr East's untimely demise, with their focus on <span style="font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Open Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">locating the driver of a white Subaru Outback, believed to have been in the vicinity at the time of the incident.</span></p> <p>As friends and loved ones grapple with the shock and grief of losing Mitch, tributes pour in, reflecting the impact he had on those around him. Described as having a "hilarious yet kind nature" and an uncanny ability to befriend everyone he met, Mitch's presence left an indelible mark on those fortunate enough to have known him. A testament to his character, a <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/in-memory-of-mitch-and-in-support-of-loved-ones" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GoFundMe page</a> initiated by Kane Dunkley has garnered significant support, surpassing $80,000, aimed at alleviating the financial burden on his family and partner.</p> <p>In professional circles, Mitch East was regarded as a highly talented lawyer whose potential was yet to be fully realised. His journey in the legal field saw him achieve remarkable milestones, from graduating with first-class honours from the University of Otago to pursuing further studies at Harvard Law School on a prestigious scholarship. His career trajectory was promising, with roles at esteemed institutions such as the New Zealand Supreme Court and the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Terrorist Attack before joining Sydney law firm Arnold Bloch Leibler in 2022.</p> <p>As investigations continue, NSW Police Detective Inspector Jason Hogan issued a plea for accountability, urging anyone with information regarding the incident to come forward “before we knock on their door”.</p> <p>“It is a cowardly act to drive away after colliding with another human,” he said.</p> <p><em>Images: GoFundMe | NSW Police</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

New details revealed as Daylesford driver's lawyer speaks out

<p>Important information about the 66-year-old man who crashed into the Royal Hotel in Daylesford has been released. </p> <p>According to the man's lawyer, he required immediate treatment at the scene, as the elderly man is an insulin-dependent diabetic. </p> <p>Detectives <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/health/caring/daylesford-crash-victims-family-speaks-out" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interviewed</a> the man, a Mount Macedon local, for the first time on Tuesday, but was not arrested or charged.</p> <p>Solicitor Martin Amad, who is representing the driver, said his client returned a negative alcohol breath test after the crash, and has no previous criminal history.</p> <p>"It was a terrible tragedy," Amad said.</p> <p>"My client has been interviewed by Victoria Police. He has not been charged with any offence. It's anticipated the investigation will take some time."</p> <p>"He is deeply distressed and feels great empathy for the families and friends of the victims and wider Daylesford community."</p> <p>The driver remains in the hospital and is undergoing medical treatment. </p> <p><span style="font-size: 16px; caret-color: #212529; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #ffffff;">“At this time the driver has not been charged, with inquiries to continue after his eventual release from care,” a police statement provided to the</span><em style="font-size: 16px; box-sizing: border-box; caret-color: #212529; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';"> Herald Sun</em><span style="font-size: 16px; caret-color: #212529; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #ffffff;"> said.</span></p> <p style="font-size: 16px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; caret-color: #212529; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">Just days after the <a style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #258440; text-decoration: none; transition: all 0.2s ease-in-out 0s;" href="https://oversixty.com.au/news/news/there-were-bodies-everywhere-five-people-dead-in-horror-pub-crash" target="_blank" rel="noopener">devastating car crash, t</a>he town of Daylesford is in mourning after five people died in the car crash. </p> <p style="font-size: 16px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; caret-color: #212529; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">Pratibha Sharma, her husband Jatin Chugh, and her daughter Anvi were enjoying the last of the weekend at the Royal Hotel in Daylesford when a white BMW SUV crashed into the beer garden on Sunday evening. </p> <p style="font-size: 16px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; caret-color: #212529; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">Sharma and Chugh died at the scene, while nine-year-old Anvi was flown to hospital but did not survive her injuries and was later pronounced dead. </p> <p style="font-size: 16px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; caret-color: #212529; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">The family were joined by their friends, Vivek Bhatia, 38, his wife, and their two kids at the pub. </p> <p style="font-size: 16px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; caret-color: #212529; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">Vivek and his 11-year-old son Vihaan were both killed in the crash, while the 36-year-old woman, and a second son, aged six, were taken to hospital for their injuries.</p> <p style="font-size: 16px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; caret-color: #212529; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';"><em>Image credits: Nine</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Lawyer sued for ‘quiet quitting’

<p> A legal firm in New York have sued one of its own lawyers, accusing her of using remote work as a way to “quiet quit” while she started a new venture.</p> <p>Quiet quitting is a relatively new term that refers to employees who do nothing above the bare minimum in their role, often leading them to end up on the chopping board. </p> <p>Defendant Heather Palmore then filed a countersuit against Napoli Solnik accusing the firm of mistreating minority employees, “brazen bullying” and seeking to “intimate people who stand up to them”.</p> <p>The lawsuit, which was filed in late February 2023 in a state court, accused Palmore of “breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, injurious falsehood, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgement and constructive trust”.</p> <p>According to the firm’s lawsuit, Palmore “misrepresented her skill set, experience, and book of business to obtain a position with Napoli Shkolnik, where she took advantage of the new remote work environment to ‘quiet quit’ her job, and simultaneously worked for two law firms at once,”</p> <p>The firm also accused her of “performing little to no work for Napoli Shkolnik while directly competing with the firm by simultaneously running Defendant Palmore Law Group”.</p> <p>Palmore said in her counterclaim that partner Paul Napoli recruited her to be the firm’s chief trial counsel in October 2021.</p> <p>“Ms Palmore has been subjected to and witnessed egregious race and disability discrimination by senior management as part of their standard operating procedures,” she said in a lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court. </p> <p>Palmore said she agreed to engage in mediation to settle her claims but claimed the firm used the time to “fabricate its own bogus lawsuit to file before Palmore could file her lawsuit — and gain some ill-conceived strategic advantage by filing first”.</p> <p>The firm claims Palmore was never committed to her job and that she established her own company almost as soon as she was hired.</p> <p>“Further, not even one month after defendant Palmore was hired by the plaintiff, defendant Palmore established her own separate law firm, The Palmore Group, PC, which she was operating and marketing while claiming to work on a full-time, attention, and energy basis for the plaintiff,” it said.</p> <p><em>Image credit: Instagram</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

“I will not be bullied”: 2GB hosts Chris Smith and Ray Hadley go head-to-head

<p dir="ltr">2GB radio presenters Chris Smith and Ray Hadley have been engaged in a bitter stoush over the Coral Princess cruise ship scare.</p> <p dir="ltr">Smith said he has hired defamation lawyers and rejected claims he had received money from the cruising industry after Hadley accused him of playing down the cruise ship’s decision to allow passengers to disembark in Sydney after recording 118 cases of COVID-19 on board.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I’ve actually engaged two media defo lawyers and will work on that very closely on Monday,” he told listeners on Saturday.</p> <p dir="ltr">The stoush began after Hadley slammed Smith for comments suggesting people “shouldn’t panic” about the Coral Princess, adding that he was “embarrassed to be on the same network” in a rant last Wednesday.<br />“One of my colleagues this morning was saying nothing to see here – it’s all wonderful,” Hadley said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I’m sorry – but the sort of nonsense I heard on the network this morning is just foolish. I’m almost embarrassed to be on the same broadcast network as that bloke. But anyway, that’s another story I’ll deal with privately.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Smith, who had been filling in for breakfast host Ben Fordham for the week, hit back at Hadley at the start of his regular Saturday morning show, though he didn’t mention his fellow radio host by name.</p> <p dir="ltr">“You may have been following the disagreements that have taken place here on-air over the arrival of the cruise ship the Coral Princess into Sydney Harbour on Tuesday,” he said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I made the point that considering 95 percent of us are fully vaccinated, considering the antivirals that are available now, the new Covid treatments, the testing kits, the many protocols we’ve adopted in two years, the cruise rule that states at a minimum you should be fully vaccinated — the arrival of the Coral Princess was absolutely nothing like the drama and concern that surrounded the Ruby Princess more than two years earlier.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Smith described the situation surrounding the Ruby Princess as “a terrible tragedy” that “we were defenceless” to deal with.</p> <p dir="ltr">“But the way the television media traced this latest ship’s every move was way over the top,” he said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“That was my simple point. It was a beat-up, there was no comparison. There were no critically ill people, no ambulances, and at one stage just four passengers infected. That’s not the same as 28 passing away, no vaccines, no treatments, no protocols, no masks, no defence. Any reasonable person can see the contrast here.”</p> <p dir="ltr">He went on to say that those who were “peddling fear”, particularly for those with loved ones on board, were “foul and shameful”.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Peddling fear in this context is foul and shameful, especially for families with loved ones on board. It scares people for no reason, which is what Dr Nick Coatsworth said to me on the breakfast show as well,” Smith said. </p> <p dir="ltr">“Which is why I said what I said. It was also consistent with what I’ve said throughout the second half of this pandemic — we need to live with this and stop panicking.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I don’t hold a candle for the cruise industry, except I feel terribly sorry for the tens of thousands of families whose loved ones have been left jobless because the industry was shut down for so long.”</p> <p dir="ltr">He emphasised that he wasn’t affiliated with the cruising industry, and that he had read commercials and taken listeners on cruises “without payment” and as part of his job.</p> <p dir="ltr">“It’s not a paid role, I take no financial advantage from it at all, none, it doesn’t work that way. I have absolutely no link to cruise companies,” Smith said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Why would I ever go into bat for cruise companies for the sake of it? Anyone who suggests I have, anyone who peddles that suspicion had better be prepared to defend themselves in court — I know I can.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Smith concluded by thanking fans for their support and stressing that he wouldn’t be intimidated by critics.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I hold my head up high on this subject and won’t be intimidated, bullied or scared into acquiescence ever, so thank you so much for your overwhelming support, it’s been phenomenal. Those that have elected to go down a twisted path and get personal to hurt me have terrible glass jaws, they have copped a terrible bashing too on various media platforms which says it all. I will not be bullied, even by lifetime bullies,” he said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I love a good rumble, I look forward to further disagreements and I look forward to standing up for myself each and every time.”</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-7f9cb439-7fff-4e35-b1d6-2a4d0cc46cf9"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Images: The Chris Smith Show (Facebook) / Getty Images</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Lisa’s lawyer’s hefty daily charge

<p dir="ltr">Lisa Wilkinson is being charged an eye-watering $11,000 a day for a high-profile lawyer following her speech at the Logies.</p> <p dir="ltr">Channel 10 has hired Australian Bar Association president Dr Matthew Collins QC for The Project host after her speech caused significant delays to the Brittany Higgins case, which was due to start this week.The case has now been postponed to October.</p> <p dir="ltr">Dr Collins is famous for winning high-profile cases - one of them being Rebel Wilson’s against Bauer Media, as well as YouTuber Jordan Shanks against former NSW deputy premier John Barilaro.</p> <p dir="ltr">The lawyer says it’s possible that Wilkinson could be charged with contempt of court, and admitted she should have known better.</p> <p dir="ltr">“It's certainly possible that the authorities will be looking at the speech that she made to the Logies and assessing that speech against the standard which applies in this branch of the law,” he said on Sunrise.</p> <p dir="ltr">“That standard is, did anything that she do have a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice?</p> <p dir="ltr">“You would hope that whenever the media is contemplating running a story about a serious criminal trial which is about to begin, they would be attune to the potential risks.</p> <p dir="ltr">“The mainstream media understands the risk inhering with talking about cases which are about to go to trial, particularly serious high-profile cases.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Wilkinson was already slammed for her comments last week by Chief Justice Lucy McCallum after rescheduling the case.</p> <p dir="ltr">It comes as Channel 10 warns publications of their criticism of Wilkinson and are not ruling out legal action for any harm that is caused.</p> <p dir="ltr">“This reporting is now causing significant harm and we ask these organisations to cease this harassment to allow Lisa the best opportunity to give her evidence in court and to enable the trial to go ahead in a fair and timely manner,” a spokesperson for the network said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“We are closely monitoring all coverage of this issue and Lisa and Network 10 reserve their rights in respect of any future defamation claims.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Images: Nine/Seven</p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Lisa Wilkinson lawyers up

<p>Lisa Wilkinson has called in top lawyer Matthew Collins after he called her Logies speech "ill-advised", in which she discussed the high-profile case of Brittany Higgins. </p> <p>Matthew Collins, president of the Australian Bar Association, told Seven’s Sunrise on Wednesday morning that The Project host may be in serious trouble following scathing comments made by ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum, who made the decision to <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/serious-legal-fallout-of-lisa-wilkinson-s-logies-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">delay the trial</a>. </p> <p>“It’s certainly possible that the authorities will be looking at speech she made to the Logies and assessing that speech went against the standard which applies in this branch of the law,” Dr Collins said.</p> <p>“That standard is, did anything that she did have a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice?”</p> <p><a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&amp;dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2Flisa-wilkinson-hires-barrister-matthew-collins-after-he-labelled-her-logies-speech-illadvised%2Fnews-story%2F721bab3f1373c77706d4ac393cbcb740&amp;memtype=anonymous&amp;mode=premium&amp;v21=dynamic-warm-test-score&amp;V21spcbehaviour=append" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Australian</a> claims that just hours after Collins made these comments, he was contacted by Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson. </p> <p>Ten confirmed that Dr Collins had been called upon to represent the network and Wilkinson, adding that Ten “fully supports Lisa Wilkinson”.</p> <p>“Both Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson take their legal obli­gations very seriously, including in the preparation and delivery of her speech given at the Logies event,” a spokeswoman said.</p> <p>“In light of the continuing proceedings, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”</p> <p>While on Sunrise, Collins added that journalists in the mainstream media “understand the risk inherent in talking about cases which are about to go to trial before courts, particularly serious, high-profile cases”.</p> <p>“So clearly this was ill-advised,” he said.</p> <p>“The whole point is that everybody in our community facing a serious charge like this is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and that means that going into the courtroom there should be no preconceptions one way or the other, so that the jury just sits and focuses really keenly on the evidence as it unfolds in the witness box, and puts out of their mind anything which they might have seen in the media, or God forbid and often far worse, in social media.”</p> <p>Due to the high-profile speech, ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum called for the trial of Bruce Lerhmann, who is accused of sexually assaulting Brittany Higgins in 2019, to be delayed. </p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Everything you should know about DIY Wills

<p>A Will is one of the most significant legal documents you’ll sign in your lifetime, so it’s important to get it right – but why? It’s an opportunity to meet two goals: to have your wishes heard, and to make things easier for your family after you pass. If you use a DIY Will kit, it’s possible that neither of those goals will be met. </p> <p><strong>What are the risks of DIY Wills?</strong></p> <p>The biggest problem with DIY Wills is that it’s very easy to get them wrong. As I detail in my book <a href="http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/ebook"><em>The Australian Guide to Wills &amp; Estate Planning</em></a>, even the simplest mistakes can cause the Will to be contested or held to be invalid.</p> <p>Some of the most common mistakes we see are:</p> <p><strong>1. Attempting to give away assets you don’t own. </strong></p> <p>A Will can only dispose of assets that you own at the date of your death, but we often find that some people with a DIY Will try to give away assets that they don’t own. For example, we once saw a Will that contained a clause that directed the life insurance be used to pay off their house so that the Will-maker’s son could receive the house free of debt. Unfortunately, the life insurance policy nominated the Will-maker’s new partner as the beneficiary. When the policy was paid to the partner, they then refused to use it to pay off the mortgage. Had the Will-maker sought legal advice, this problem would have been identified and the appropriate steps taken to ensure that the intention was fulfilled.</p> <p><strong>2. Failing to comply with basic legal formalities. </strong></p> <p>A Will is a legal document. There are legal requirements that must be followed when making a Will to ensure that the Will is valid. Simple things such as having only one witness to your signature or having the witnesses using different coloured pens can raise questions about whether your signature was actually witnessed. Basic errors such as these can either invalidate your Will or create costly disputes within the family.</p> <p><strong>3. Being too specific in your Will. </strong></p> <p>Some people who attempt to make a DIY Will try and give away every single thing they own. This creates two potential problems. First, the Will-maker often forgets to include a “catch-all” clause at the end of the Will. This means that there will be some assets that are not disposed of. These “forgotten assets” are then distributed in accordance with a formula set out in legislation. Second, some assets listed in the Will are likely to change. For example, if the Will leaves a house to a beneficiary and that house has been sold prior to the Will being administered, that beneficiary misses out on the gift. Proper advice at the time of preparing a Will can avoid these problems.</p> <p><strong>4. Imposing requirements on a beneficiary. </strong></p> <p>Some DIY Wills impose requirements on the beneficiaries that are sometimes unrealistic or impractical. This often happens where gifts made to a charity direct that the funds be used for a purpose that might no longer exist. This outcome can be avoided if the Will is drafted correctly. Further, sometimes the identity of the organisation that is to receive the gift is unclear. This, too, can be avoided with proper advice.</p> <p><strong>5. Forgetting to appoint an executor to the Will. </strong></p> <p>Forgetting to appoint an <a href="https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/wills-and-estates/probate-and-estate-administration/executor-of-a-will/">executor of your Will</a> won’t invalidate your Will, but it can complicate or slow down the process of sorting out your estate. The failure to appoint an executorcan also lead to a dispute as family members jostle to be appointed as Administrator of the estate.</p> <p><strong>6. Overlooking the fact that circumstances change. </strong></p> <p>DIY Wills often overlook the need to cater for change. A Will needs to be drafted to deal with any potential change in circumstance. While not every scenario can be covered, with proper advice the most obvious scenarios can be dealt with.    </p> <p><strong>7. Illegible handwriting. </strong></p> <p>This is a simple but common mistake we often see with DIY Wills. If no one can read your Will, then you can’t be certain your wishes will be granted.</p> <p><strong>What’s the best way to make a Will?</strong></p> <p>The first thing I say to people who want to write their own Will is: <em>Don’t do it</em>. But if you do have your mind set on creating a fuss-free, quick and easy standard Will, we have the perfect solution.</p> <p>Our online Wills service, <a href="http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/createmywill">MyLife Wills™</a> is the best of both worlds. Like an online DIY Will, you can provide the information for your Will online in the comfort of your own home or on your lunchbreak. It only takes 30 minutes, reducing face-to-face time with a lawyer, therefore reducing the cost. However, the significant difference with our online service is that an expert Wills &amp; Estates lawyer will draft your Will so you get the peace of mind that it’s legally valid.</p> <p>DIY Wills are often seen as a cheaper option to seeking legal advice, but that’s not necessarily true. A DIY Will might cause more issues down the track, potentially costing your loved ones money or causing disputes.</p> <p>Be smart about your Will and start <a href="http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/createmywill">online</a> today.</p> <p><strong>Need more information?</strong></p> <p>Andrew Simpson is the National Head of Wills &amp; Estate Planning at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers.</p> <p>Andrew has 20 years’ experience as a lawyer and for the past 18 of these years he has practiced in <a href="https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/our-people/lawyers/andrew-simpson/">Wills disputes</a> and <a href="https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/our-people/lawyers/andrew-simpson/">Estate planning</a>, so he understands the many facets of <a href="https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/our-people/lawyers/andrew-simpson/">Estate law</a>.</p> <p>He is so passionate about this area of law that he wrote a plain English book about it to help people understand the importance of Estate planning.</p> <p>A best-seller, <a href="http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/ebook"><em>The Australian Guide to Wills &amp; Estate Planning</em></a>, has just been republished and is available in all good bookstores.</p> <p><em>This is a sponsored post written in partnership with <a href="http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/createmywill">Maurice Blackburn Lawyers</a>.</em></p> <p> </p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Prince Charles “calls in lawyers”

<p dir="ltr">Prince Charles has reportedly “called in lawyers” over allegations that he questioned what colour skin baby Archie would have.</p> <p dir="ltr">The claim comes from the newly released book,<span> </span><em>Brothers and Wives: Inside the Private Lives of William, Kate and Meghan</em><span> </span>by US author Christopher Anderson, and is one of several reported on by<span> </span><em>Page Six<span> </span></em>over the weekend.</p> <p dir="ltr">The book<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://7news.com.au/entertainment/royal-family/prince-charles-calls-in-lawyers-as-hes-named-as-royal-who-made-skin-colour-comment-in-book-brothers-and-wives-inside-the-private-lives-of-william-kate-and-meghan-c-4738910" target="_blank">alleges</a><span> </span>that Prince Charles asked his wife Camilla, “I wonder what the children will look like?” in reference to his son Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s then-unborn child.</p> <p dir="ltr">Anderson goes on to claim that a “somewhat taken aback” Camilla replied: “Well, absolutely gorgeous, I’m certain.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Prince Charles is alleged to have then said, in a “lowered voice”, “I mean, what do you think their children’s complexion might be?”</p> <p dir="ltr">Clarence House has slammed the allegations, telling British tabloid<span> </span><em>The Sun</em><span> </span>that Anderson’s account “is fiction and not worth further comment”.</p> <p dir="ltr">The<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16879170/prince-charles-racist-claims-fiction/" target="_blank">publication reported</a><span> </span>that the book’s claims had only been seen by Clarence House several days before the book's publication, and that royal lawyers had been alerted.</p> <p dir="ltr">“The claims are utterly ridiculous,” an insider told the newspaper.</p> <p dir="ltr">“There is more of a concern that commenting on it will simply sell more books than actually damage Charles’ reputation.”</p> <p dir="ltr">The allegations come months after Meghan and Harry’s bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey, where Meghan claimed there were “several conversations” with Harry about “how dark Archie’s skin might be when he was born”.</p> <p dir="ltr">Though she declined to say who Harry had the conversations with, it was later revealed that he told Oprah it didn’t involve the Queen or her late husband, Prince Philip.</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

What does 'beyond reasonable doubt' mean in criminal law?

<p>When you are charged with an offence by the police, they are required to be able to prove that charge “beyond reasonable doubt”.</p> <p>Under the common law tradition, it is not the responsibility of the accused person to prove his or her innocence; in other words, “the onus of proof” is never rests with the defence.</p> <p>Rather, the prosecution is required to prove all elements (or ingredients) of the alleged offence to a standard of proof known as beyond any reasonable doubt.</p> <p>The defendant, on the other hand, is presumed to be innocent until and unless the prosecution is able to discharge its onus of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.</p> <p>So, what does all this mean?</p> <p><strong>What is a standard of proof?</strong></p> <p>The standard of proof is the degree to which a decision-maker is convinced that an offence has occurred; a decision-maker including a magistrate in the Local Court, or a jury or judge-alone (in <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/when-can-a-defendant-be-granted-a-judge-alone-trial-in-nsw/">judge-alone trials</a> or cases) in a higher court such as the District or Supreme Court.</p> <p>In civil law matters, which include cases where individuals or companies commence proceedings against others for damages, compensation and the like, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”.</p> <p>This means the decision-maker must be convinced it is more likely than not that the person making the claim – such as the applicant or plaintiff –  has established its case.</p> <p>Expressed in another way, it means the case has been established by more than 50%.</p> <p>This civil law standard of proof is embodied in section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).</p> <p>Criminal cases are where the state prosecutes an individual or company for a criminal offence, such as an assault, drug offence, theft or the like.</p> <p>In these cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.</p> <p>This standard is higher than the civil law standard of proof as it is an attempt to both rectify the unequal power imbalance between the state and an individual as well to reflect the seriousness of the consequent loss of liberty if found guilty (as opposed to mere monetary cost in civil cases).</p> <p>But the courts have made clear that phrase ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is to be understood only by its ordinary meaning, not by any codified test, whether based on separate criteria or not.</p> <p>The Honourable Justice Newman in the Court of Criminal Appeal case R v GWB [2000] NSWCCA 410 said at [44] that:</p> <p><em>“judges should not depart from the time honoured formula that the words ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ are words in the ordinary English usage and mean exactly what they say”.</em></p> <p>Although the prosecution must always prove each element of their case beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant might make a positive case in their defence – that what is alleged happened differently or had a legal justification, for instance that an act of violence was in self-defence.</p> <p>If the defence raise a case they must prove, it is to the lower standard of on the balance of probabilities.</p> <p>These criminal law standard of proof is embodied in section 141 of the <em>Evidence Act 1995</em> (NSW).</p> <p><strong>Where does the standard of proof come from?</strong></p> <p>Our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence.</p> <p>Again, this means that a person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent of that crime until and unless that person is found guilty in a court of law.</p> <p>This presumption has become an essential part of our system of justice to ensure fairness.</p> <p>Roman law had the maxim <em>ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat </em>or “proof lies on him who says, not on him who denies”.</p> <p>The concept also can be found in the traditions of Jewish and Islamic religious laws. This concept was brought into the English common law in the early Renaissance through influence from the Catholic Church and its canon law, which is based on the ancient Roman system.</p> <p>In 1791, the concept was pithily phrased by the barrister Sir William Garrow as “presumed innocent until proven guilty”. This statement ties together the two key legal concepts of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof; accordingly it has since become known as the ‘golden thread’.</p> <p>William Blackstone writing on English laws a generation before Garrow stated the philosophy that underpins both the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof being beyond reasonable doubt: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”</p> <p>The United Nations has also enshrined the importance of the presumption of innocence and burden of proof in international law under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.</p> <p><strong>Who decides if a charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt?</strong></p> <p>In criminal law cases, most matters are resolved in the Local Court, which is termed “summary prosecution” in legal lingo.</p> <p>The Local Court is presided over by a Magistrate, who is a local court judicial decision maker. This is an independent legal professional who oversees local court matters at all stages, from beginning to end. In cases being decided by the local court at hearing, the Magistrate is the decision-maker for both questions of fact and questions of law.</p> <p>More serious cases are dealt with “on indictment”, which escalates the matter to the District Court and entitles the defendant to a trial by jury.</p> <p>A jury trial means that the jury are the decision-makers for questions of fact, while questions of law are decided by a District Court Judge.</p> <p>However, in certain cases a defendant can forego their right to a jury in favour of a judge-alone trial, where the judge is decision-maker for both questions of fact and questions of law, like a Local Court Magistrate.</p> <p>The most serious cases the indictment is dealt with in the Supreme Court, in a trial by jury overseen by a Justice of the Supreme Court. Similarly, in certain circumstances a defendant can forego a jury in favour a judge-only trial presided over by a Supreme Court Justice.</p> <p>So, this decision as to whether a charge has been proven beyond reasonable doubt is a matter for a magistrate, a judge, or jury members to decide depending on the case.</p> <p><strong>Can an innocent person be found guilty?</strong></p> <p>Deciding whether an alleged offence is proven beyond reasonable doubt is a subjective decision, about which reasonable minds may differ.</p> <p>Both the defence and the prosecution can be unhappy about a decision made and there is recourse to appeal that decision to a higher court.</p> <p>This means the hearing or trial will be reviewed and the judge will assess whether there was or was not reasonable doubt.</p> <p>The most recent high-profile case on reasonable doubt was the decision of the full bench of the High Court of Australia in the case of <em>Pell v The Queen </em>[2020] HCA 12.</p> <p>The key issue in the case was that, to quote the judgment summary, although:</p> <p><em>“the jury had assessed the complainant’s evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt in relation to the offences.”</em></p> <p>But it is indicative of how difficult this question can be to answer that it first went through the Chief Judge and a jury in the County Court of Victoria, and then before three justices on appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.</p> <p>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/what-does-beyond-reasonable-doubt-mean-in-the-criminal-law/">Sydney Criminal Lawyers</a> and is written by Patrick O'Sullivan. </p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Lawyers for Rust armourer claim ‘sabotage’

<p dir="ltr">Lawyers for Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://oversixty.com.au/finance/legal/she-s-a-rookie-rust-s-armourer-comes-under-fire" target="_blank">24-year-old armourer</a><span> </span>at the centre of the investigation into the tragedy on the set of Alec Baldwin’s film<span> </span><em>Rust,<span> </span></em>are now<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-11-03/rust-shooting-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed-lawyers" target="_blank">claiming</a><span> </span>their client was the victim of sabotage, and that the accident was ultimately the fault of someone else.</p> <p dir="ltr">Her lawyers have suggested that someone intentionally smuggled live rounds of ammunition into a box of dummy rounds before the<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/news/news/alec-baldwin-allegedly-shot-and-killed-cinematographer" target="_blank">fatal on-set shooting</a><span> </span>that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. Lawyer Jason Bowles made the suggestion while appearing on numerous morning news programs on Wednesday morning.</p> <p dir="ltr">On<span> </span><em>Good Morning America</em>, he asked, “Why do you place that in the box labeled ‘dummies’ that the armorer is going to be pulling from? Why would you do that other than to try to cause some incident on the set?</p> <p dir="ltr">“Now, we’re not saying anybody had any intent there was going to be a tragedy — a homicide — but they wanted to do something to cause a safety incident on set. That’s what we believe happened.”</p> <p dir="ltr">When GMA anchor Michael Strahan pressed him for evidence to support this serious allegation, Bowles simply asserted that his client did not place the live round that was ultimately responsible for Hutchins’ death in the ammunition box.</p> <p dir="ltr">“We know the live rounds shouldn’t have been in that box, but they were,” he said. “So there can be very, very few explanations for why live rounds end up in a box of dummy prop ammunition on a movie set. And one of them is that somebody wants that to go into a firearm and then wants there to be an incident on the set. There’s no other reason to mix a live round with the dummies. There’s just none.”</p> <p dir="ltr">After presenting the same argument on<span> </span><em>Today<span> </span></em>and being asked by host Savannah Guthrie why anyone would “have the motive and opportunity” to sabotage the ammunition in this way, Bowles said, “I believe that somebody who would do that would want to ... prove a point, want to say that they’re disgruntled.</p> <p dir="ltr">“And we know that people had already walked off the set the day before. ... And the reason they were unhappy is they’re working 12- to 14-hour days. They were not given hotel rooms in and around the area. So they had to drive back and forth an hour to Albuquerque, and they’re unhappy.”</p> <p dir="ltr">This is a reference to the fact that the camera crew had staged a walkout before the incident, fed up with unreasonable working conditions and amidst a push within Hollywood to improve working conditions for film and television crews.</p> <p dir="ltr">Guthrie then asked Bowles if he was accusing the crew members who had walked out of planting the live ammunition, to which he said, “You can’t rule anybody out at this point. We know there was a live round in a box of dummy rounds that shouldn’t have been there… there was opportunity to tamper with the scene. And yes, we’re looking at that possibility.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Instagram</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Can I be refused entry to a premises if i am unvaccinated?

<p>NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian<span> recently </span><span>announced </span>that once 70% of residents in the state have both doses of a COVID-19 vaccination, certain ‘freedoms’ will be handed back to them– including travelling intrastate and attending restaurants, bars, weddings, funerals, gyms, sporting events and theatres, subject to physical distancing and capacity limits.</p> <p>The Premier made clear that these liberties would not be available to those who have not received both doses of a COVID-19 vaccination.</p> <p>Many are of the view that while both Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Ms Berejiklian<span> </span>claim that COVID-19 vaccines are voluntary, the fact that many cannot without vaccination continue with their employment, or will soon be prohibited from certain liberties enjoyed by the vaccinated, means that in practical terms,<span> </span>being vaccinated is compulsory for anyone who wishes to live a semi-normal life.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Public Health Orders</strong></p> <p>The prohibitions in our state which purport to protect residents against the spread of COVID-19 are primarily made under the<span> </span>Public Health Act 2010<span> </span>(NSW).</p> <p>The Act empowers state officials to make a range of enforceable directions and orders with a view to dealing with public health risks, and the discriminatory prohibitions proposed by Ms Berejiklian will be decreed under the provisions of this piece of legislation.</p> <p>The power to deal with health risks is contained in section 7 of the Act, which provides that where the health minister considers on reasonable grounds that a situation has arisen that is, or is likely to be, a risk to public health, the minister may take such action or give such directions that are necessary to deal with the risk and its possible consequences.</p> <p>The section makes clear that actions and orders can be made in order to:</p> <ul> <li>Reduce or remove any risk,</li> <li>Segregate or isolate inhabitants, and/or</li> <li>Prevent, or conditionally permit, access to areas.</li> </ul> <p>The section says that such an order must be published in the Gazette as soon as practicable after it is made, but that failure to do so does not invalidate the order.</p> <p>Similar legislation applies in other states and territories.</p> <p>Section 10 of the Public Health Act provides that a person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with such a direction faces a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison and/or a fine of 100 penalty units, which is currently $11,000.</p> <p>Any continued failure to comply is punishable by a fine of 50 penalty units, or $5,500, for each day the offence continues.</p> <p>The Act also empowers ‘authorised persons’, including police officers, to issue infringement notices to those suspected of<span> </span>failing to comply with a public health order.</p> <p><strong>Current Challenges to the Public Health Act </strong></p> <p>Four separate legal challenges are currently before the Supreme Court of New South Wales which assert that the Public Health Act was never intended to, and does not, give the state’s health minister the power to breach the bodily integrity of individuals by making orders that, for all intents and purposes, mandate vaccines.</p> <p>Three of the cases are brought on behalf employees who have found themselves unable to fulfil their employment obligations as a result of deciding not to be injected with a COVID-19 vaccination. One of these is a construction worker (Al-Munir Kassam), another is a<span> </span>police officer (Belinda Kay Hocroft)<span> </span>and the third is a person who resides in a Local Government Area of concern (Natasha Henry).</p> <p>The fourth application is by unrepresented plaintiff, Sergey Naumenko.</p> <p>Supreme Court Justice Beech-Jones recently joined all four of the cases, and they are listed on 30 September 2021 for determination of an application by the NSW government to summarily dismiss them.</p> <p>During a recent directions hearing, the barrister for Al-Munir Kassam, Peter King, told the court his client’s case was about a “simple excess of power”.</p> <p><em>“It’s a question of the power of the minister to make the actual order under section seven of the [Public] Health Act,”<span> </span></em>the barrister submitted.</p> <p><em>“And we say read consistently, with the principle of legality set out by the High Court, it is not authorised.”</em></p> <p>The NSW government is strongly opposing the challenges, with its lead barrister, Jeremy Kirk SC, remarking of one of them:</p> <p><em>“There are so many problems with this case it’s difficult to know where to start.”</em></p> <p><em>“There is no named defendant, there is no articulated legal claim. Rather there are just sort of aspirational orders which to a significant extent are entirely misconceived such as, for example, proposed order two that the plaintiff and his immediate family be exempted from microchipping.”</em></p> <p>It is unclear whether these challenges will be decided in favour of the workers and, if so, whether the decisions will be narrowly constructed to apply to them only, or to a class of classes of workers, or whether they will contain broader declarations regarding the powers of the health minister generally.</p> <p>In any event, the unsuccessful party may apply for leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision to the High Court of Australia – which is the highest court in the land.</p> <p><strong>Challenges to COVID-19 Orders to Date</strong></p> <p>It should be noted that all the<span> </span>challenges made in the courts so far<span> </span>against COVID-19 orders and directions<span> </span>have been unsuccessful, with the judiciary finding that there are no constitutional protections, or other common law or embedded rights, which prohibit governments from passing such rules.</p> <p>For many,<span> </span>these cases highlight the need for constitutional protections<span> </span>and/or a national Bill or Charter of Rights in Australia.</p> <p>There have also been<span> </span>three challenges<span> </span>in the Fair Work Commission of New South Wales by workers claiming they were unfairly dismissed after refusing to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination. All of these have also been unsuccessful.</p> <p><strong>Current State of the Law</strong></p> <p>As a result, it can be said there is has been no judicial finding which expressly prevents the NSW state government from making public health orders which essentially discriminate between those who are vaccinated and those who are not – including those relating to entering specific categories of businesses.</p> <p>There is also<span> </span>no general prohibition against a person who owns or manages a business from refusing entry<span> </span>to a prospective patron.</p> <p>However, the above is subject to the outcome of the pending challenges, as well as exceptions contained in legislation which prohibit certain forms of discrimination in our state, and indeed nationally.</p> <p><strong>Anti-Discrimination Legislation</strong></p> <p>The Ant-Discrimination Act 1977 is the main piece of state legislation which prohibits certain forms of discrimination in New South Wales.</p> <p>The heads of discrimination that are unlawful under the Act are:</p> <ul> <li>Racial discrimination,</li> <li>Sexual harassment,</li> <li>Sex,</li> <li>Transgender status,</li> <li>Marital or domestic status,</li> <li>Disability,</li> <li>Responsibilities as a carer,</li> <li>Homosexuality,</li> <li>Compulsory retirement on grounds of age,</li> <li>HIV/AIDS vilification, and</li> <li>Age.</li> </ul> <p>These heads cover discrimination in a range of areas, including employment, education and the provision of goods and services, and the Act contains a range of exceptions which make it lawful to discriminate in certain circumstances.</p> <p><strong>Disability Discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977</strong></p> <p>The most relevant proscribed head of discrimination for present purposes is disability.</p> <p>In that regard, there is an argument that a person for whom a COVID-19 vaccination is inappropriate for medical reasons would be discriminated against on grounds of disability if the person were to be refused entry to a premises on grounds of being unvaccinated.</p> <p>So, on its face, there is an argument that a person who is medically exempt from having a COVID-19 vaccine could not be refused the ‘freedoms’ afforded to those who are vaccinated, such as the ability to enter premises.</p> <p>However, this argument may be rebutted by<span> </span>section 49P of the Act, which is titled ‘Public Health’ and provides that:</p> <p><em>“Nothing in this Part renders unlawful discrimination against a person on the ground of </em><em>disability</em><em> if the </em><em>disability</em><em> concerned is an infectious disease and the discrimination is reasonably necessary to protect public health.”</em></p> <p>This exception gives rise to an argument that a person with a COVID-19 vaccination exemption could potentially be refused entry to a premises<span> </span><u>if</u><span> </span>this were considered necessary to protect the health of those within the premises.</p> <p>And here’s where it gets hairy.</p> <p><strong>Is Discrimination against those who are medically exempt lawful?</strong></p> <p>Health experts concede that those who receive COVID-19 vaccinations are able to both contract and spread the disease.</p> <p>Advocates of vaccination focus, instead, on findings that vaccinated persons are less likely than those who are unvaccinated to experience severe symptoms.</p> <p>That being the current state of the (ever-changing) advice, there is an argument that those who do not receive a COVID-19 vaccination are no more likely to pose a risk to others than those who are vaccinated.</p> <p>If that argument is accepted, it appears that businesses would fall foul of the law if they were to refuse entry to persons who hold COVID-19 vaccination exemptions, if the refusals were based on the persons not being vaccinated.</p> <p>A contrary, and perhaps tenuous, argument is that it is generally necessary for the population to receive COVID-19 vaccinations in order to reduce the impact on the public health system of those suffering from severe symptoms, and it may therefore be permissible for business owners to refuse entry to persons who are not vaccinated, despite their medical exemptions.</p> <p>But, again, this is a tenuous argument which, taken to its limits, could result in enabling conduct which undermines the objectives of the Act itself.</p> <p>Another potential contrary argument, for which the medical evidence is unclear, is that those who are not vaccinated are more likely to contract and/or spread the virus to others.</p> <p>But, again, the evidence for this is unclear. In fact, there is an argument that because those who are vaccinated are less likely to be symptomatic, or at least less visibly or severely symptomatic, they could be more likely to spread the virus as they are less likely to be aware they have it, and are therefore more likely to venture out.</p> <p>On the balance, the stronger argument appears to be that business owners who refuse entry to those with a medical exemption would be acting in contravention of the Act, if that refusal were on the grounds of being unvaccinated.</p> <p>It should be noted that the ventilation of these arguments inside a courtroom would require the adducing of medical evidence, and we are certainly not medical experts.</p> <p><strong>Disability Discrimination Act 1992</strong></p> <p>The main piece of legislation which prohibits discrimination on grounds of disability across Australia is the<span> </span>Disability Discrimination Act 1992<span> </span>(Cth).</p> <p>There is some overlap between this Act and the New South Wales legislation.</p> <p>Under the Commonwealth Act, it is unlawful to directly or indirectly discriminate against a person on grounds of disability in a broad-range of areas including<span> </span>access to premises, employment, goods, services, facilities and accommodation.</p> <p>Like the New South Wales Act, the Commonwealth legislation contains a public health-type exception. However, the exception in the latter is considerably more narrow.</p> <p>That exception is contained in<span> </span>section 48 of the Act. It is titled ‘Infectious Diseases’ and provides that:</p> <p><em>“</em><em>This Part does not render it unlawful for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s disability if:</em></p> <ul> <li><em>The person’s disability is an infectious disease; and</em></li> <li><em>The discrimination is reasonably necessary to protect public health.”</em></li> </ul> <p>The exception makes clear that discrimination may only be lawful if it is reasonably necessary to protect public health in circumstances where the person who is discriminated against suffers from an infectious disease.</p> <p>As it cannot be said that a person suffers from COVID-19 simply because he or she is not vaccinated for it, a business owner would be acting unlawfully if he or she were to refuse entry to a person with a COVID-19 vaccination exemption, if that refusal were on the grounds of not being vaccinated.</p> <p>Written by Ugur Nedim. <em>Republished with permission of<span> </span><a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/sydney-police-post-pictures-of-work-party-on-social-media/">Sydney Criminal Lawyers.</a></em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Police officer charged with 98 criminal offences

<p><em><strong>Sensitive Content Warning </strong></em></p> <p>A former Victorian police officer has faced the Melbourne Magistrates court, charged with 98 criminal offences including rape and stalking, which were allegedly committed while he was a serving officer.</p> <p>41-year old Brett Johnson is facing 98 charges including three counts of sexual assault, three counts of indecent assault and one of stalking.</p> <p>Amongst the allegations he faces is one that he raped a woman at a police station and had intimate relationships with a person who was either a victim of crime or a vulnerable member of the community, also that he concealed these relationships from his supervisors.</p> <p>Prior to resigning from the force, Mr Johnson was a Leading Senior Constable. He also faces charges of misconduct, including that he used a Victoria Police database to conduct unauthorised checks on a person. He will return to court in November.</p> <p>It is rare for a police officer to face criminal prosecution in Australia.</p> <p><strong>Police accountability </strong></p> <p>In New South Wales, the Police Force itself is primarily responsible for investigating complaints involving officers.</p> <p>The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission, (LECC) tends to focus its attention on more serious cases of misconduct and maladministration. The body is both chronically underfunded and has no power to bring charges or otherwise discipline officers.</p> <p>As a general guide, misconduct is defined as conduct that could result in prosecution for a serious offence – being an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of 5 years or more – or serious disciplinary action, such as termination of employment.</p> <p>Because, in the first instance, police generally investigate any complaints made against officers, it effectively allows police officers to investigate their own.</p> <p>As such, there have long been calls to change the system to one that allows for more impartiality.</p> <p>This current system leaves many victims feeling unsatisfied and aggrieved, and they choose to make a civil claim against the NSW Police Force.</p> <p>These civil proceedings can be extremely costly, stressful and prolonged – and are therefore rarely pursued.</p> <p><strong>“The cost of doing business” </strong></p> <p>Early last year, information released by the former head of the LECC in New South Wales showed that since 2016 NSW police had reported paying more than $238m in legal liability. Former LECC Commissioner, Patrick Saidi, accused the NSW Police of treating this as ‘the cost of doing business’.</p> <p>Mr Saidi called for an investigation into the “systematic failure” of law enforcement to address the number of civil cases filed against officers for misconduct, saying that the sums paid by taxpayers as a result of lawsuits brought against police provided “misinformation” about the way the organisation handled complaints and legal cases.</p> <p>Part of the reason figures and accurate information is so hard to obtain with accuracy is that ‘out of court settlements’ with government departments generally include gag orders, or ‘confidentiality agreements’ which stop parties from discussing any aspects of the case or the settlement.</p> <p>Other obstacles to obtaining the full financial picture include the fact that data is not held solely by NSW Police — sometimes it is held within other departments. Additionally, of course, the NSW police force is insured so some costs for liability may be covered.</p> <p>But later in 2020, documents obtained by the NSW Greens, showed NSW Police had spent $24m on legal settlements in the previous financial year, including settlements for serious misconduct claims including battery, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.</p> <p>The documents also showed that Police defended and settled almost 300 civil claims against officers during the same period.</p> <p>Justice advocates have long criticised the lack of transparency surrounding civil legal cases against NSW police, not just the outcomes for victims, but how the police officers involved were disciplined by the force.<strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>NSW officers facing criminal charges </strong></p> <p>Police are rarely held fully accountable for crime, corruption or other forms of misconduct.</p> <p>Even in the face of serious allegations, criminal charges or civil action, many are often allowed to remain (some with full pay) on the force until court processes are complete, others are demoted or moved to different areas within the organisation.</p> <p>But, there are dozens of examples of police officers who have committed serious criminal offences, using their trusted position to assist in the perpetration of crimes.</p> <p>Last year, two Sydney police officers were arrested and charged with sexual offences against a 17-year old schoolgirl.</p> <p>The financial cost aside, the failure of police officers to abide by the laws they are meant to enforce creates a real sense of mistrust between communities and authorities. The lack of confidence in police has become so pronounced in the eyes of many that victims will often fail to report offences committed against them.</p> <p>This distrust has been growing in New South Wales for some years, because of increasingly aggressive arrests, strip searches, and the prolific use of tasers and batons, which in many instances have amounted to police brutality.</p> <p>Yet, NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller has regularly defended offending officers, including those who illegally strip search children and young women, and has even been given substantial pay rises, for his efforts, including a time when there is a hiatus on pay rises for all other government employees.</p> <p>It has to be asked whether these continual raises in remuneration are any real incentive to actually change the culture of the force, or to implement strategies to improve public relations and restore the public’s faith in its police officers, a service which costs more than $3.4 billion a year to run, a cost that is funded by taxpayers.</p> <p><em>Written by Sonia Hickey. Republished with permission of </em><a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/former-police-officer-charged-with-98-criminal-offences/"><em>Sydney Criminal Lawyers.</em></a></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Craig McLachlan’s lawyer accuses co-stars of showing “slutty” behaviour

<p>Aussie actor Craig McLachlan’s lawyer has claimed in court that the four women who have accused the performer of indecent assault displayed “slutty” behaviour.</p> <p>The <em>Gold Logie</em> winner is being faced with 13 charges against four women during a run of the <em>Rocky Horror Show.</em></p> <p>These charges include seven counts of indecent assault and six counts of common law assault.</p> <p>While a decision on these charges will be handed down to the 55-year-old next month, his lawyers have refused to rest their defence.</p> <p>It has been more than a year since he first appeared in court to fight the allegations.</p> <p>As part of the 160-page written defence submission, there were pictures of the alleged victims in “slutty” positions and a “lesbian pose”.</p> <p>Defence barrister Stuart Littlemore QC explained his use of the word “slutty” in the documents.</p> <p><img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7838713/craig-mclachlan-1.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/d3e2075f869b492a80ed2f5c6b8cc72a" /></p> <p><em>Craig McLachlan</em> <em>in The Rocky Horror Show.</em></p> <p>“I’m going to call a spade a spade,” the lawyer said.</p> <p>“The photos do depict people in slutty poses and deliberately so. It’s not to be sanitised, it’s not be diluted, this is part of the culture of permissiveness.”</p> <p>The former soap star has been accused of touching a woman’s genitalia over her costume on stage, sticking his tongue into one woman’s mouth and feeling up a woman’s thigh. He also allegedly thrust his groin at a woman while partially aroused.</p> <p>The former Neighbours and <em>Home and Away</em> star has categorically denied all the charges against him.</p> <p>Prosecutor Matt Fisher has slammed the “slut” remarks as inflammatory and inappropriate.</p> <p>He also said using the photos as an “excuse” for McLachlan’s alleged behaviour towards the women was “impermissible” in this day and age.</p> <p>Magistrate Belinda Wallington said the term was unfortunate.</p> <p>“Some of the terms used … are most unfortunate. Phrases like sluts, slutty poses are most unfortunate,” she said.</p> <p>The magistrate went on to say that the court “doesn’t necessarily approve” of some of the language in the submissions on Monday.</p> <p>Mr Littlemore wrote one of the co-stars adopted a “lesbian pose”.</p> <p><img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7838712/craig-mclachlan-2.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/a14633996d9d4b04a3164fb481bd2b4f" /></p> <p><em>Craig McLachlan with his TV sister Kylie Minogue during his stint on Neighbours in 1988.</em></p> <p>The lawyer also went on to describe an alleged victim’s appearance as “artfully dishevelled” when she was giving evidence at an earlier hearing.</p> <p>He said her testimony was a “skilful application of the craft of acting”.</p> <p>“That’s an old school submission … with no basis, it belongs in the dark ages,” the prosecutor responded.</p> <p>The magistrate told the lawyers that she would be ignoring any submission in relation to the complaints about clothing.</p> <p>The prosecution argued that McLachlan used his celebrity status and position of power to take advantage and assault the women.</p> <p>He also went on to claim that the “power imbalance” made them feel they were unable to speak up until the show’s run was over.</p> <p>In explaining why the women came forward, he said: “They were concerned what the accused had done to them and concerned about what he might do to others.”</p> <p>Mr Fisher also went on to tell the court about allegations McLachlan allegedly said.</p> <p>He is accused of telling co-stars he would “end them” and that they “don’t know who you’re dealing with”.</p> <p>They were also worried about their employment prospects if they spoke up, he said.</p> <p>The actor was questioned about the allegations over three days of evidence and denied the claims.</p> <p>He even went on to burst into song to show how it was “impossible” for him to have stuck his tongue into a co-star’s mouth on stage.</p> <p>“If I am late in that … because I fancy a snog, I miss the next lighting cue,” Mr McLachlan told the court after he finished a few lines from the song.</p> <p>Mr McLachlan also labelled one of his accuser’s as the “most vulgar woman” he knew or ever encountered during his questioning.</p> <p>However when videos were aired of the award-winning performer sitting on the toilet and pulling faces, he denied that his behaviour was equally vulgar.</p> <p>Another video aired in court showed Mr McLachlan pretending to pleasure himself.</p> <p>McLachlan said the videos were meant in a “comedic” sense.</p> <p>Ms Wallington will hand down her decision in mid-December.</p> <p> </p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Trump lawyer's press conference mistake goes viral

<div class="post_body_wrapper"> <div class="post_body"> <div class="body_text redactor-styles redactor-in"> <p>A weekend press conference by Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani went viral over the weekend as a staffer mistakenly booked Four Season's Landscaping instead of the five-star hotel.</p> <p>Donald Trump tweeted "Lawyers Press Conference at Four Seasons, Philadelphia,' but quickly deleted it and replaced the tweet with Four Season's Landscaping".</p> <p>“Big press conference today in Philadelphia at Four Seasons Total Landscaping – 11.30am!” he tweeted.</p> <p>Four Seasons Total Landscaping is a small business located between a crematorium and an adult book store called Fantasy Island.</p> <p>People on Twitter were quick to make fun of the incident.</p> <p>"I could write jokes for 800 years and I'd never think of something funnier than Trump booking the Four Seasons for his big presser and it turning out to be the Four Seasons Total Landscaping parking lot between a dildo store and a crematorium," one person <a rel="noopener" href="https://twitter.com/ZackBornstein/status/1325274318218035201" target="_blank" class="editor-rtflink">wrote</a>.</p> <p>"I'm sorry, I can't let this go: The people who can't find the right Four Seasons want you to believe they uncovered 40,000 fraudulent ballots in Philadelphia?" another person <a rel="noopener" href="https://twitter.com/JeffLieber/status/1325298846705061888" target="_blank" class="editor-rtflink">pointed out</a>.</p> <p>According to <em>The New York Times</em>, Trump's team did intend to hold the press conference at the landscaping business but the president was a bit confused.</p> <p>“In reality, the mistake was not in the booking, but in a garbled game of telephone,” the <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/11/07/us/biden-trump?smid=tw-nytimes&amp;smtyp=cur#which-four-seasons-oh-not-that-one" target="_blank" class="editor-rtflink"><em>New York Times</em></a> wrote.</p> <p>“Mr. Giuliani and the Trump campaign adviser Corey Lewandowski told the president on Saturday morning their intended location for the news conference and he misunderstood, assuming it was an upscale hotel, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.”</p> <p>According to insiders, they told the landscaping business as it was in a more Republican-friendly part of town.</p> <p>PBS Senior Political Reporter Daniel Bush added a bit more info, <a rel="noopener" href="https://twitter.com/DanielBush/status/1325143314170048514?s=20" target="_blank" class="editor-rtflink">tweeting</a>: “An answer to the Four Seasons Total Landscaping mystery: the company told me the Trump campaign contacted them today out of the blue ahead of the Giuliani presser and said their location was close to an exit on I95, and was secure, and that’s why they wanted to use it.”</p> </div> </div> </div>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Australian lawyer allegedly sacked for refusing to lie

<p>A <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/legislation/corporations-act/">corporate lawyer</a> has commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court after he was terminated from his position as a senior legal adviser with Meriton Property Services for allegedly refusing to lie in an affidavit.</p> <p>Sydney lawyer Joseph Callahan is claiming $556,500 in compensation and costs after being terminated from his $350,000 a year position in February 2020.</p> <p>He claims that during a meeting on 3 February 2020, his employer, billionaire property developer Harry Triguboff, demanded that he falsely state in an affidavit that Sydney Council had taken three years to approve a development application.</p> <p>According to his statement of claim, the lawyer responded by stating, “I’m a solicitor and can’t include something in an affidavit which I know isn’t true”.</p> <p>He says his employer then said, “Listen my friend, you write it my way or you can fuck off”, and “Fuck you. I pay you to win cases do you understand?”.</p> <p>Mr Callahan says he then told his employer, “I understand I am here to win cases, but it did not take three years to get the building approved, so I can’t give evidence to the Court that it did”, to which Mr Triguboff responded, “Enough crap from you. Write it my way or you are no good to me”.</p> <p>The lawyers says he stood his ground, telling his employer “Harry I won’t do it. It’s a lie”.</p> <p>He says his employer emailed him on 13 February 2020 to advise that his position had been terminated.</p> <p>Meriton Property Services refutes the allegations, filing a defence which states:</p> <p>“All allegations that suggest otherwise are strongly denied. Meriton disputes the sequence and nature of the events set out in the court filing”.</p> <p>The case is listed for hearing on 17 June 2020.</p> <p><strong>The offence of swearing a false affidavit</strong></p> <p>Swearing a False Affidavit is a crime under <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/legislation/oaths-act/swearing-falsely-in-affidavits/">Section 29 of the Oaths Act 1900</a>.</p> <p>The offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.</p> <p><strong>For the offence to be established, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:</strong></p> <ol> <li>The defendant swore or affirmed an affidavit,</li> <li>The affidavit was affirmed or sworn before a person authorised to do so,</li> <li>The affidavit was false in any respect, and</li> <li>The defendant knew the affidavit was false in that or those respects.</li> </ol> <p>In addition to this, <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/legislation/oaths-act/false-statement/">section 33 of the Oaths Act 1900</a> prescribes a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for the offence of making a false statement in an affidavit.</p> <p><strong>To establish that offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant:</strong></p> <ol> <li>Swore or affirmed an affidavit,</li> <li>Made a false statement within that affidavit, and</li> <li>Knew the statement was false.</li> </ol> <p>Swearing to false information in an affidavit may also amount to perverting the course of justice, which is an offence under <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/legislation/crimes-act/perverting-course-of-justice/">section 319 of the Crimes Act 1900</a> carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.</p> <p><strong>To establish that offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant:</strong></p> <ol> <li>Engaged in an act or made an omission, and</li> <li>Did so with the intention of perverting the course of justice.</li> </ol> <p>‘Perverting the course of justice’ is defined as ‘obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating the course of justice or the administration of law’.</p> <p><strong>Defendants have been found guilty of the offence for the following conduct:</strong></p> <ol> <li>Falsely swearing or declaring that another person was responsible for an offence,</li> <li>Attempting to bribe a police or judicial officer to avoid being prosecuted or punished,</li> <li>Using a victim’s phone or email in an attempt to create a defence to a crime,</li> <li>Encouraging or bribing another person to plead guilty to an crime they did not commit, to provide a false alibi and to give false testimony in court.</li> </ol> <p>Where it is alleged that a false affidavit was used in connection with judicial proceedings – such as court proceedings – a person can be charged of perjury, which is an offence under <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/legislation/crimes-act/perjury/">Section 327 of the Crimes Act 1900</a> carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.</p> <p><strong>To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:</strong></p> <ol> <li>The defendant made a false statement under oath or affirmation,</li> <li>The statement was in, or in connection with, judicial proceedings,</li> <li>The statement concerned a matter that was material to those proceedings, and</li> <li>The defendant knew the statement was false or did not believe it was true.</li> </ol> <p>The maximum penalty increases to 14 years in prison where the prosecution proves that the defendant intended to procure the conviction or acquittal of a person for a ‘serious indictable offence’, which is one that carries a maximum penalty of at least 5 years in prison.</p> <p><strong>Defences to the charges</strong></p> <p>In addition to prove each ‘element’ (or ingredient) the charges, the prosecution must disprove beyond reasonable doubt any legal defence which a defendant validly raise in court.</p> <p><a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/defences/">Legal defences</a> which apply to these offences include:</p> <ol> <li>Duress</li> <li>Necessity, and</li> <li>Self-defence</li> </ol> <p><strong>Professional obligations</strong></p> <p>In addition to obligations under the general law, a solicitor or barrister who falsely swears to information in a legal statement such as a statutory declaration or affidavit is liable to disciplinary action by the Law Society of New South Wales, including being <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/lawyers-struck-off-for-professional-misconduct/">‘struck off’ for professional misconduct</a>.</p> <p>Going to court for an offence against justice?</p> <p>If you have been charged with an offence against justice such as swearing a false affidavit, contempt of court, perverting the course of justice or perjury, call Sydney Criminal Lawyers anytime on (02) 9261 8881 to arrange a free first conference with an experienced criminal defence lawyer who will advise you of your options and the best way forward.</p> <p><em>Written by Ugur Nedim. Republished with permission of </em><a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/lawyer-allegedly-sacked-for-refusing-to-lie/"><em>Sydney Criminal Lawyers.</em></a></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

“Exacerbated by global heating”: An interview with NSW firefighter Jim Casey

<p>The current bushfire crisis has so far destroyed over <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/aussies-demand-climate-action-scotty-delivers-marketing-and-anthony-rolls-over/">10 million hectares</a>. Unprecedented in its scope, it’s also taken the lives of <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/too-little-too-late-morrison-will-mourn-bushfire-victims/">32 people</a> – including 12 firefighters – while <a href="https://www.cnet.com/how-to/australia-fires-have-killed-more-than-a-billion-animals-so-far-how-you-can-help/">over a billion animals</a> have perished in the flames. And the true environmental, economic and health costs remain unknown.</p> <p>So, it comes as a bit of a shock for many to learn that 23 former fire and emergency leaders had been trying to warn the federal government about the crisis that was likely coming and the need for greater investment in protective measures as far back as <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/former-fire-chief-calls-out-pm-over-refusal-of-meeting/11705330">April last year</a>.</p> <p>In order to combat any finger pointing that might come their way, politicians of the right have been <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/debunking-the-myth-that-the-greens-caused-the-bushfire-crisis-an-interview-with-mlc-david-shoebridge/">propagating the idea</a> that the Greens are to blame for the unprecedented bushfires, due to their supposed opposition to hazard reduction burns. Although, there’s no evidence to justify this.</p> <p>NSW deputy premier John Barilaro came out just <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/barilaro-accuses-government-agencies-of-ideological-opposition-to-hazard-reduction-20200122-p53tns.html">last week</a> accusing NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service of not performing necessary hazard reduction due to “ideological” reasons, even though his government in 2017 cut <a href="http://www.pennysharpe.com/labor_reveals_121m_cuts_no_plan_for_new_parks_the_national_party_trying_to_turn_national_parks_back_into_state_forests_for_commercial_logging">$121 million</a> of its funding, which resulted in reduced <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/120342-parks-and-wildlife-funding-cuts-in-the-spotlight-as-nsw-nationals-play-the-blame-game/">fire prevention staff</a>.</p> <p><strong>Governed by the culprits</strong></p> <p>This nation is “ground zero for both climate impacts and climate policy uncertainty”, states <a href="https://laureatebushfiresclimate.wordpress.com/">an open letter</a> published on Wednesday by Australian Research Council fellows. The 80 leading local academics state that government needs to learn from the catastrophe and take relevant action.</p> <p>These bushfires “arrived at the end of a year with the lowest average rainfall and the highest average temperatures ever recorded across Australia”, the academics outline. “Climate change has arrived, and without significant action greater impacts on Australia are inevitable.”</p> <p>However, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that the Liberal National government isn’t willing to take effective measures. Morrison has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/29/australia-is-ground-zero-in-climate-crisis-and-must-show-leadership-top-researchers-say">admitted</a> to climate playing a role in the increased intensity of the fires. Although, he’s only spoken of adaptation to it, rather than action to cut carbon emissions.</p> <p>A <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-coal-industry-controls-the-coalition/">major reason</a> behind this unwillingness to act is that the federal government is in the pocket of the coal industry. Indeed, <a href="https://act.greenpeace.org.au/dirtypower">numerous links</a> between government and Big Coal would make it financially counterproductive for Coalition politicians to walk away from the industry.</p> <p>And this is further evidenced at the state level with the NSW Liberal National government’s <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-details.aspx?pk=3717">bill before parliament</a>, which seeks to remove the requirement that planning authorities now have to consider the impact of exported coal emissions when assessing new mining proposals.</p> <p><strong>Word on the ground</strong></p> <p>The <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ausfca/">Australian Firefighters Climate Alliance</a> is a group of firefighters who’ve joined together to advocate for stronger action on climate. And career firefighter Jim Casey has been speaking out on its behalf at <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-liar-from-the-shire-thousands-march-demanding-action-from-morrison/">a number of Sydney rallies</a> over recent months.</p> <p><a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/police-stations-we-attend/auburn-police-station/">Sydney Criminal Lawyers</a> spoke to Fire and Rescue NSW firefighter Jim Casey about the factors that created the most intense bushfires ever seen, how the government would have reacted in a similar manner regardless of who was PM, and the reasons behind those hazard reduction rumours.</p> <p><strong>Firstly, you</strong> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/14/australias-firefighters-need-concrete-support-not-just-the-pms-thoughts-and-prayers"><strong>wrote in the Guardian</strong></a><strong> a few months back, that you’ve been fighting fires your entire professional life and you’d never before seen the types you were being confronted with.</strong></p> <p><strong>But, that was in mid-November, and there’s been much more to come. Jim, how would you sum up what’s happened since then?</strong></p> <p>I take no satisfaction in saying that when I said in November that these fires were unprecedented, I was correct then, but the worsening situation just shows you how much more extreme this season has become.</p> <p>That extremity is not by chance, it’s a changing world. And it’s led to a catastrophic fire season.</p> <p><strong>So, you’ve been out there on the frontline during the crisis. In your opinion, are we passed the worst of it?</strong></p> <p>I’m not prepared to say that we’re past the worst of it, because you just don’t know what’s going to happen.</p> <p>It is worth noting that a lot of the fuel load near major population centres has been significantly reduced just by fire. And we’ve had a limited return of rain.</p> <p>But, having said that, we’ve still got months of summer to go – anything could happen. So, I’m hoping the worst is over, but I wouldn’t make that commitment.</p> <p><strong>And what’s it been like out there for you fighting the fires? </strong></p> <p>It’s been fighting bushfires or carrying a larger load in the city. We’ve had less resources in the city, because people are at the frontline, so it’s busy all around.</p> <p>It’s either busy in Sydney, up in the Blue Mountains, or down on the South Coast. To be honest, it’s been full on. But, that’s the nature of the job.</p> <p><strong>You’re a spokesperson for the</strong> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ausfca/"><strong>Australian Firefighters’ Climate Alliance</strong></a><strong>. You accept the science linking the severity of the crisis to changing climate conditions.</strong></p> <p><strong>For those in the community coming to grips with the effects of changing climate on bushfires, how do you explain the implications?</strong></p> <p>For a fire to occur you need three things: temperature, oxygen and fuel. So, for a wildfire – a bushfire – you’ll see more intense fires, when you’ve got more fuel on the ground, where the atmosphere is windy and when the temperatures are high.</p> <p>For these fires, all three of those factors have been exacerbated by a change in climate. We’ve seen extreme weather behaviour in terms of windstorms, and so forth, which is associated with a warming world.</p> <p>We’ve got a fuel load on the ground that’s higher than anyone wanted. That’s partially because of the reduced window for hazard burns during winter, which is the result of a warming world.</p> <p>Then finally there’s the question of temperature. The 1 to 1.5 degree of warming is an issue. But, by far, the bigger concern is the extreme weather spots, which occur within that warming.</p> <p>So, the runs of very hot days in the high 30s or low 40s. That’s the kind of thing that turns the bushfire into a firestorm.</p> <p>All three of the factors behind what makes a fire work – all three – have been exacerbated by global heating.</p> <p><strong>You’ve been addressing the crowd at a number of recent rallies in Sydney, which have been calling out Scott Morrison on his lack of climate action.</strong></p> <p><strong>How would you describe the leader of this country’s form during the current crisis, which is now into its fifth month?</strong></p> <p>My favourite take on it is from the Betoota Advocate, which is the <a href="https://www.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/nation-begins-to-understand-why-scotty-got-the-arse-from-all-those-marketing-jobs/">Nation Begins To Understand Why Scotty Got the Arse From All Those Marketing Jobs</a>.</p> <p>But, seriously, it’s been a conspicuous fail. The prime minister has got a cloth ear. His attempts at empathy come across as either harassing people into shaking his hand or running away from them when they need something. It’s a disgrace. It’s been a fail.</p> <p>But, while Scott Morrison’s personal failings have been made manifest, the real issue is he represents a political party that’s beholden to the mining lobby. And none of the people who would be prime minister instead would be behaving any better.</p> <p>Morrison is someone easy to mock for the way that he’s been handling the situation from beginning to end. And he should be mocked. He deserves the contempt.</p> <p>But, no one should be under any allusions that the next in line for the top job in the Liberal Party would be any better than he would.</p> <p><strong>The right of politics has managed to run a smear campaign, laying the blame for the current crisis at the feet of the Greens, because of its supposed position on hazard reduction burns.</strong></p> <p><strong>You’re a member of the NSW Greens, so you must have been confronted by this argument. How have you been able to account for it being bandied about like its truth?</strong></p> <p>There are some people that it wouldn’t matter what you say they’re going to believe the madness.</p> <p>The thing I’ve found – which is quite compelling – is that I’m a proud member of the Greens NSW, and I conduct hazard reduction burns. It’s part of my job. And I don’t down tools when I am told to do it.</p> <p>It’s just ridiculous. The Greens are not opposed to hazard reduction burns. We are opposed to the idea of concreting the entire countryside and destroying everything. But, most Australians are.</p> <p>The Greens are a scapegoat for a tricky and nasty government that’s been called out. So, they’re trying to find someone to blame. They’ve had a crack at us. Most don’t believe it, particularly when you see the fire chiefs coming out saying that it’s not true.</p> <p>To put this all in context, the Greens have a minority on some councils. We have two lower house MPs in NSW. We’ve got one lower house MP in federal parliament. How we are running this agenda with those numbers is beyond me.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>The minister in charge of this state’s bushfire recovery, NSW deputy premier John Barilaro just took aim at NSW National Parks and Wildlife, blaming that organisation for the intensity of the fires because again it hasn’t been properly partaking in hazard reduction.</strong></p> <p><strong>What do you think about the leader of the NSW Nationals accusing National Parks of being at fault?</strong></p> <p>That bloke has got more front than Myers to have a crack at National Parks, when under this government, according to the Public Service Association, there’s been a 35 percent cut in firefighting positions inside the parks.</p> <p>Again, it’s just switch and bait. These people have been caught out not planning for the future. They’ve been caught out cutting funds from parts of the public sector that fight fires.</p> <p>They’ve been caught out running no line at all on climate change. And basically, subsidising the fossil fuel industry.</p> <p>They know that anyone with half a brain is putting all of this together and coming up with the conclusion that they’re vandals. And their concerns for their top end of town mates outweighs any concerns for the environment or the rest of us.</p> <p>So, in an environment like that, they’re looking for someone to blame. And I just urge your readers to take everything they say with a grain of salt, because these people have got blood on their hands, and they’re desperately trying to make sure that no one – no one – blames them.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>And lastly, Jim, as a career firefighter with a grounding in the science of climate, what do you think needs to happen from here, both in terms of immediately on the ground and also at a broader level looking at climate into the future?</strong></p> <p>There are two things that need to happen. The first is the immediate question of how we respond to these crises when they’re upon us. Obviously, they’re needs to be more money put into firefighting. You can’t get around that.</p> <p>At the end of the day, firefighting hasn’t changed for centuries. There’s someone on the end of a length of hose or a hand tool doing their best to put the fire out or build a fire break. That’s not going to change. We need more firefighters on the ground.</p> <p>But, then there are other things we need as well. There needs to be significant investment in aerial capacity and fleets.</p> <p>While these fires were at their worst, there were hundreds of professional firefighters, like me, who could not be used. I had days off, because there weren’t enough fire engines for us as staff. You could fix a lot of this with a $50 to $80 million expenditure.</p> <p>I actually expect that we will see some of that from government. This crisis has frightened everyone and throwing limited amounts of money at this is something they will do. Probably not enough. And we will need to push for more. But, they’ll have a start.</p> <p>The big issue is what they’re doing about the root cause of the problem. And that’s a far more thorny kind of question.</p> <p>This is what we are seeing at 1 degree of global heating. If things were fixed right now, we are still likely to get up to the 2 degree mark. And there’s no indication that that’s going to happen.</p> <p>So, really this is just a taste of the future. Things will get worse, unless action is taken immediately.</p> <p>That means that both the state, and especially the federal government, need to accept the science and get aggressive about trying to make sure that Australia stops burning coal for our own energy consumption, exporting fossil fuels for others, and start making our nation a leader in the world for renewable energy, both for our consumption and export.</p> <p><em>Written by Paul Gregoire. Republished with permission of </em><a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/exacerbated-by-global-heating-an-interview-with-nsw-firefighter-jim-casey/"><em>Sydney Criminal Lawyers.</em></a></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Why a Will is only one piece of the estate planning puzzle

<p>More than 50% of Australian’s don’t have a Will or estate plan, let alone other important medical and life documentation in place. It may be daunting to consider another person to make a life-changing medical decision, to be guardian of your children or to be your Power of Attorney if you fall ill or become incapacitated. However, the unavoidable fact is, if you don’t think about these serious decisions now, your partner or children might be put in a situation where they are left guessing your wishes, causing extreme stress, chaos and uncertainty.</p> <p>It is normal to forward plan in other aspects of our life, such as finances, insurances or superannuation to ensure we and our families are protected. Don’t skip planning for your life.</p> <p>We believe something as important as estate planning should be easy, so we have developed a unique package called <a href="https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/mylifedocuments/">MyLife Documents™</a><em>. </em>This unique offer allows you to prepare five essential estate planning legal documents easily, in one go, for a fixed price and under the consultation of an expert Wills &amp; Estate Planning lawyer.</p> <p>As I assure you in my book, <a href="http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/ebook"><em>The Australian Guide to Wills &amp; Estate Planning</em></a>, Wills and estate planning doesn’t have to be as daunting, labour intensive or expensive as you may think and the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. Making plans now is the best way to ensure that your family and loved ones are looked after if anything should happen to you.</p> <p>Blackburn Lawyers work with you over two consultations to prepare <strong>five</strong> vital documents:</p> <p><strong>1. A standard Will</strong></p> <p>A Will is a legal document that enables you to determine how your ‘estate’ is to be distributed after your death. This includes your money, property, shares, investments and possessions. While separate from your estate, you should also make decisions about how your superannuation is dealt with when you make your Will.</p> <p><strong>2. Enduring Power of Attorney (POA)</strong></p> <p>An Enduring Power of Attorney is a legal document that allows you to nominate one or more persons to act on your behalf for legal, financial and personal decisions. This can start when you decide and continues to be effective if you lose the ability to make your own decisions.</p> <p><strong>3. Appointment of Medical Treatment Decision Maker</strong></p> <p>The appointment of a Medical Treatment Decision Maker is different to a POA, as they are tasked specifically with making medical decisions for you if you are ill or injured and unable to make them for yourself.</p> <p><strong>4. Advance Care Directive</strong></p> <p>In relation to your medical decisions, you are also able to prepare a second document called an Advance Care Directive which allows you to record your wishes regarding treatment and communicate them to your Medical Treatment Decision Maker so that they have an understanding of what is important to you.</p> <p><strong>5. Statement of Wishes</strong></p> <p>A Statement of Wishes is a separate document to your Will. A Statement of Wishes is not binding but can assist your executors when it comes time to administer your estate.</p> <p>At Maurice Blackburn, we store your Statement of Wishes with your Will so that executors have everything they need to administer your estate.</p> <p>Things that might be included in a Statement of Wishes:</p> <ul> <li>music that you wish to be played at your funeral</li> <li>who your pallbearers will be</li> <li>who will scatter your ashes</li> <li>other preferences around burial or cremation</li> <li>the location of your assets so your executors may easily find them</li> <li>who you would like notified about your death.</li> </ul> <p>These five essential legal and medical documents<strong> </strong>work hand-in-hand to protect your loved ones in the event you are injured or incapacitated, or if you pass away. Failure to do so can create uncertainty and stress for family and friends, leaving them guessing your wishes.</p> <p>In my experience, the cost of not planning your estate is far greater than the cost of planning it. Don’t put it off any longer, as your family will always be better off with these documents in place. By making one simple phone call today, you can take the pressure off your family and loved ones down the line.</p> <p>Andrew Simpson is the National Head of Wills &amp; Estate Planning at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers.</p> <p>Andrew has 20 years’ experience as a lawyer and for the past 18 of these years he has practiced in <a href="https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/our-people/lawyers/andrew-simpson/">Wills disputes</a> and <a href="https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/our-people/lawyers/andrew-simpson/">Estate planning</a>, so he understands the many facets of<span> </span><a href="https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/our-people/lawyers/andrew-simpson/">Estate law</a>.</p> <p>He is so passionate about this area of law that he wrote a plain English book about it to help people understand the importance of Estate planning.</p> <p>A best-seller,<span> </span><em><a href="http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/ebook">The Australian Guide to Wills &amp; Estate Planning</a></em>, has just been republished and is available in all good bookstores.</p> <p>For all oversixty.com.au readers, we are pleased to offer a<span> </span><span><strong><a href="http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/ebook">FREE download</a></strong></span><span> </span>of Andrew’s book, valued at $29.95</p> <p><em>This is a sponsored post written in partnership with<span> </span></em><a href="http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/createmywill"><em>Maurice Blackburn Lawyers</em></a><em>.</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Should I tell my lawyer the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

<p>When engaging a criminal defence lawyer, clients are sometimes unsure about how much to say at the first meeting – concerned that telling their lawyers everything all at once could make it harder to achieve the best possible outcome.</p> <p>Indeed, in serious cases, lawyers may not obtain full instructions from their clients until they have received the statements and other materials upon which the prosecution relies, and until both they and their clients have gone through those materials.</p> <p>So, what are the rules that affect how a lawyer can deal with information from clients?</p> <p><strong>Legal professional privilege</strong></p> <p>The client/solicitor relationship is one of the most fundamental of our legal system.</p> <p>As such, principles have been established so that clients can provide full and frank disclosure to their lawyer without fear that this information will be used against them.</p> <p>Chief of these principles is ‘legal professional privilege’ also known as ‘client legal privilege’ which protects conversations between lawyers and clients. In the words of Dean J in <em>Baker v Campbell </em>(1983) 153 CLR 52:</p> <p><em>“That general principle represents some protection of the citizen – particularly the weak, the unintelligent and the ill-informed citizen – against the leviathan of the modern state. Without it, there can be no assurance that those in need of independent legal advice to cope with the demands and intricacies of modern law will be able to obtain it without the risk of prejudice and damage by subsequent compulsory disclosure on the demand of any administrative officer with some general statutory authority to obtain information or seize documents.”</em></p> <p>Legal professional privilege protects against the disclosure of communications between client and lawyer made for the dominant purpose of seeking or providing legal advice or for use in anticipated legal proceedings.</p> <p>This means your lawyer is generally prohibited from disclosing communications made for the purpose of your cases, subject to the exceptions outlined below.</p> <p>Privilege applies to both verbal and written communications between a lawyer and his or her client; whether in person, over the phone, by mail or over the internet – so it’s a broad protection which seeks to facilitate free communication between the parties.</p> <p><strong>Exceptions to client legal privilege</strong></p> <p>There are, however, a number of exceptions to client legal privilege that you need to be aware of.</p> <p>In NSW, sections 121 to 126 of the Evidence Act provide a number of situations where client legal privilege does not apply to the admissibility of evidence, which are:</p> <p><a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea199580/s121.html">121</a> – Where the client has died or where disclosure is necessary to enforce a court order,</p> <p><a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s122.html">122</a> – Where the client waives privilege, or consents to the lawyer disclosing information or producing materials, or where the client acts in a manner inconsistent with maintaining the privilege (eg discloses to others),</p> <p><a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s123.html">123</a> – Where a defendant is giving evidence in criminal proceedings, unless it is a a confidential communication or document between an associated defendant and a lawyer acting for that person in connection with the prosecution of that person.</p> <p><a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s124.html">124</a> – Where two or more clients have jointly retained a lawyer in civil proceeding and one or more of them wishes to disclose a confidential communication or contents of a confidential document,</p> <p><a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s125.html">125</a> – Where a communication is made or document prepared in furtherance of a <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/offences/fraud-charges/">fraud</a>, an offence or an act which would render a party liable for a civil penalty, and</p> <p><a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s126.html">126</a> – Certain information necessary to understand material to which privilege does not apply as a result of the preceding sections.</p> <p>What if I’m actually guilty but want to plead not-guilty?</p> <p>There are some circumstances where being too frank with your lawyer may limit how they can advocate for you inside the courtroom.</p> <p>And it should be said that if you are indeed guilty, pleading that way will entitle you to <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/what-is-a-guilty-plea-discount/">a guilty plea discount</a> – which could result in a less serious type of penalty than if your were to plead not guilty and be found guilty. For example, an early plea of guilty could result in a penalty such as an <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/penalties/nsw/intensive-correction-orders/">intensive correction order</a> or <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/penalties/nsw/community-correction-order/">community correction order</a> instead of a prison sentence.</p> <p>However, an experienced criminal defence lawyer will be able to ask you questions in a way that reduces the risk of future prejudice.</p> <p>If you do admit to the offence, but wish to plead not-guilty to it – your lawyer will be limited in how he or she can present your case in court.</p> <p>This is because all lawyers are required to abide by professional ethics and conduct rules which can limit the questions that can be asked in certain situations, and the way cases can be argued.</p> <p>The rules <u>do not</u> prohibit lawyers from representing clients who admit their guilt to their lawyer; however, lawyers are strictly prohibited from lying or knowingly misleading the court on behalf of their clients.</p> <p>A lawyer who knows their client is guilty can still ‘put the prosecution to proof’; which means they can ask questions of prosecution witnesses and make submissions to the court to the effect that the prosecution has failed to prove each of the ‘essential elements’ (or ingredients) of the charge case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that their client should therefore be acquitted.</p> <p>But again, the lawyer will not be able to elicit false or misleading evidence, or make false or misleading submissions to the court.</p> <p>For example, a lawyer to whom you admit your guilt can assist by questioning and challenging prosecution witnesses. But he or she cannot allow you or another person to tell lies on the witness stand. If this nevertheless occurs, the lawyer would be well advised to submit to the court that he or she is ‘embarrassed’ and withdraw from the case.</p> <p>Often honesty is preferable, as you may be guilty of a lesser offence than the one you have been charged with, in which case your lawyer can push for the charge to be downgraded, or tailor your defence to ensure you are found not guilty of the charged offence in court.</p> <p>So it’s a bit of a tricky area, but experienced defence lawyers are well-aware of the rules, the pitfalls and how to act in the best interests of their clients whilst abiding by their other ethical obligations.</p> <p><strong>Changing</strong> <strong>lawyers</strong></p> <p>If you don’t feel your lawyer can adequately represent you – whether this is because you have told them something you shouldn’t have, or you believe they are not suitably experienced, or for another reason – it may be in your interest to obtain new legal representation.</p> <p>Changing lawyers is a simple process, and when making that decision you should always bear in mind that choosing the right lawyer may be one of the most important decisions you ever make, and that you should always be looking out for your own best interests.</p> <p>If you want to change lawyers, you will normally need to sign an ‘authority to uplift’. Your new lawyer will be able to provide you with this document, and can send it to your previous lawyer on your behalf in order to obtain the materials they have.</p> <p>If you have unpaid fees with your previous lawyer, it is advisable that you pay these to enable a smooth transfer and ensure your previous lawyer doesn’t seek to exercise a ‘lien’ over your materials – which means to refuse to forward your materials on to your new lawyer.</p> <p><strong>Going to Court?</strong></p> <p>If you are going to court and require expert advice <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/about/lawyers/">from experienced, specialist criminal defence lawyers</a>, call Sydney Criminal Lawyers anytime on (02) 9261 8881 to arrange a free first conference.</p> <p><em>Written by Jarryd Bartle. Republished with permission of </em><a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/should-i-tell-my-lawyer-the-truth-the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth/"><em>Sydney Criminal Lawyers.</em></a></p>

Legal

Our Partners