ISYS100 VLOG- "Compulsory Pro Bono Legal Work?"

“Should Pro Bono (free legal services) be compulsory for all Lawyers in Australia?” Discuss.

As my VLOG topic, I decided to talk about an important issue within the legal system; and more specifically the legal profession. The topic of “Pro Bono” legal work raises a number of important arguments for and against it being compulsory for all lawyers to undertake in Australia. Essentially, “Pro Bono” refers to free legal services and in my blog I discuss the overriding question of whether it should be mandatory for all lawyers to undertake as part of their service to the community and their duty in the administration of justice. This links to my topic of "Law and Current Events" as this issue is a reoccurring topic that sparks legal debate. It is also one of the most important aspects of the legal profession. Therefore, the video effectively discusses the reasons for and against whether "Pro Bono" should be compulsory for all Lawyers in Australia. I look at both sides of the argument and showcase important aspects of the concept of "Pro Bono." The video goes for 2 minutes and 58 seconds, thus, it falls within the time constraints. There is a title frame at the very beginning outlining that the video is part of an ISYS assessment, as well as a title of “Pro Bono” to provide some context on what the video will be about. Furthermore, it involves background music over the title and captions throughout the video to sum up some important points. Additionally, I have included transitions throughout the VLOG; images, as well as voice over on top of those images and some important video clips to help contextualise the video and provide some external opinions on the topic at the hand.

As the only member of the group, I contributed fully to the video. Some of my duties included:

Researching (this involved researching online on relevant websites to determine what current issue within the legal system was being discussed within the media. It was also important to find various sources to back up my points and discuss both sides of the argument).
Writing (recording the arguments for and against)

Directing and Filming (recording the video on my mobile, filming several takes to get the right footage)

Acting (Speaking and appearing in the VLOG)

Editing (Utilised iMovie as my editing software to create the VLOG piece and add in all the titles, videos, images, transitions, voice over, background music and captions)

Creating the VLOG (Also involved me transferring the the recorded footage onto my computer for editing and compiling the relevant videos and images to be used within the VLOG)

Uploading to Youtube and Blogger.

In general terms, as the only member of the group, I researched and developed 21 opinionated daily Blog Posts (Whilst linking them on twitter) on topics that I found interesting and controversial as a current event in the legal system and the law.

Had a blast doing this assessment!

Thanks,

Cameron Munro- ISYS 100, Tutorial 9, Group 8 ("Law and Current Events").

Gay Marriage

As my very last blog post for this Assessment task, I thought it was important to go out with a bang! and talk about one of the most controversial and current issues within the law and the legal system (as a current event in Australian Society) with many, many debates showcasing opinions and views for and against; the concept of Gay Marriage!

Personally, I believe that this debate has gone on too long. As we all know, In Australia "Gay Marriage" is illegal- and is not treated as a "Marriage" (traditionally between a man and a woman) but as a "Union." I think that this is absurd and ridiculous- this is discrimination at its finest- something I thought, we as an diverse and accommodating nation- do not stand for.... Although I do not have a very strong opinion on the matter, I think that this has gone way too far. I genuinely do not see the issue with this, and why we have had to drag this through the media for years and years. It is time to take a stance and make a change. We, as the public should have the right to vote on this, like I have been saying in previous blog posts, WE are the ones that are grounded by the law, we live by it every single day and is the very foundation upon which society survives upon. Without it, we wouldn't be where we are today. But, in saying that, the law is in place to match and fit with the communal standards and expectations, because, without the constant change within the law, we just wouldn't be the nation we are today. It is as simple as that...

I do not understand the general fuss around this?!?! What is the big deal? All they want is equality (showcased by the above video). That is an extremely basic right that they deserve! They don't want to be better than us, placed on a throne or anything like that. It is merely a debate about equal marriage rights. Enough of living in the dark ages, we as a nation, have to be accommodating for all walks of life; all sexualities. Love is love. It doesn't matter the age or gender, or anything like that. These people don't get to pick and choose. Love seeps through all boundaries. This is so unaustralian. So I believe that they should, under the relevant legislation; be entitled to the same rules and procedures as anyone else. They just want what everyone else has.

At the end of the day, this should not be a political or religious debate... It has nothing to do with that! We, as a nation, should be allowed to vote on such huge and widespread issues like this. We should be able to make these decisions. Religion has to be secular from the law (we are defined by civil law- not biblical matters). This is love! It doesn't make sense to integrate the two- this is the cause of wars and hatred. The law must be separate. Therefore, equality for all is essential. We will be ruined; the law will be ruined and not taken as serious, if we do not provide these fundamental rights for everyone. What would be the point? It is time to make a change... The above video is a very very important video to watch (providing context and information and statistics on the matter! please watch!).

Reference for Text:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/not-allowing-same-sex-marriage-is-frankly-un-australian/story-fnizhakg-1227503895797

Reference for Image:
http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/piechart.png

Reference for Youtube Videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yip46iX0r3I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfaHnlMV9Qw

Once again, these are just my views and opinions. I am always open for discussion on the matter, and hearing both sides of the argument. This is my last blog post for the ISYS100 Assessment Task 2 (adding up to 21 blog posts), and I have had a ball! Thanks for tuning into my Blog!

Mandatory Vaccinations

The results are out. 86% of Australians want childhood vaccination to be compulsory. I do not find these statistics a shock. Its common sense. Why put ALL children at risk? Only 10% are opposed with the other 4% undecided. Therefore, it is overwhelming clear of Australia’s stance on this issue. The below statistic is from the USA, signifying that this is a global issue that needs to be addressed. 

Once again, I believe that the law should exist to suit and change towards the expectations of society. There is no use having laws that were valid hundreds of years ago, as we have all changed as a nation, and therefore, should be governed under contemporary and relevant laws that are appropriate and match our societies’ inherent expectations and moral views/standpoints. Such that, those who refuse to vaccinate their children; should be prosecuted (introduction of laws to make vaccinations in children compulsory). The video below discusses the overall topic discussed within this blog post on whether vaccinations should be mandatory, highlighting some key points.

Therefore, I strongly believe that we should enact news laws to make it compulsory for ALL children to have vaccinations. There is no other way. No argument which could justify otherwise. I just don’t understand who that 10% are and what there reasoning is behind their ludicrous views. This follows successful policy changes and campaigns that have been implemented (e.g. “No Jab, No Play" campaign) which ensured that all kids attending childcare are fully vaccinated. I think that this was and is a fantastic initiative, and is an important step towards full implementation and introduction of these reform measures. I believe that the next step is undoubtably, law reform.

At the end of the day, all this is about is protecting the next generation; our next leaders of our great nation. It is preventing harmful diseases and illnesses from ever occurring. I do not understand why this is an issue. Why we would need to be discussing this. It is a no brainer and clear common sense. This is not a political debate. It is pure common sense. I just don't get it. Something needs to change. I am glad that we are working as a nation to eradicate these immoral views and take a stand towards protecting all children. Another big issue is that some babies are too young to get vaccinated, and thus, those children who are older (old enough to be vaccinated) and their parents decided against it, is directly putting others at risk. It is selfish. All children deserve the right to be vaccinated and shouldn't be dictated by uninformed or ill parents. The below video showcases a key debate on this issue and provides many arguments for and against this issue.

What do you think?

Reference for Text:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/galaxy-poll-86-per-cent-of-australians-want-childhood-vaccination-to-be-compulsory/story-fni0cx12-1227290503812?sv=dbb0697ac274f0ee35b497dbd921be7a 

http://www.chainofprotection.org/vaccinations/ 

Reference for Image:

http://www.ebola.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Measles_Vaccines_Required-679x382.jpg

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/34f3c12e46e775b6bc7e523d797ba40d553715a7/r=540&c=540x304/http/videos.usatoday.net/Brightcove2/29906170001/2015/02/29906170001_4029717216001_video-still-for-video-4029675097001.jpg

Reference for Youtube Videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIHl2H5PtUw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAQzqyXxk3w

Online Guardianship Reform

With the ever-present risk of online sexual grooming and online sexual predators; it is important to protect those who are the most at risk; and the most vulnerable in these alarming situations. Minors. Children. Kids. What I want to talk about within this blog post, is this central issue of parental access to the online accounts (including social media) of children. I believe that this is an important issue within the law and is a current event within our legal system that needs to be reformed to further protect and provide protection for our younger generation.

I am proposing a central law reform proposal that would seek to enact certain provisions in the Criminal Code Act 1995  and the Family Act 1975 to allow for mandatory parental access to a child’s social media and online accounts. This would be in place to effectively enhance the protection of minors from online sexual predators and online grooming. I believe that increased awareness of a child’s online presence, their safety would automatically increase. Such that, sexual predators would more likely be recognised quicker by law enforcement agencies under this reform.

It is clear that more attention needs to be focused on the principles of protection and early detection, which can be achieved if parents have the mandatory access to their children’s online accounts. Essentially, this will provide early targeting of online grooming and ultimately; protect the wellbeing and healthy upbringing of children. Although there may be some practicality issues on this would function; I think that it would just be treated as another duty for a parent towards their child. Again, this does pose some questions about breaches of privacy for the children, but the pros definitely out weigh the cons in this situation and necessary movements need to be in place to better protect children against online predators and the dangers of online sexual grooming (which can create long lasting effects on the child’s mental health for example- the above video outlines what online sexual grooming is and the effects it can create on young people).

Reference for Text:

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi379.pdf

Reference for Image:

http://www.youandco.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/case_study_image/public/groomed_shutterstock_144287341.jpg?itok=_BGkEoQV

Reference for Youtube Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZLaiS3fZ8A

Compulsory Drug Treatment Program

Today, I want to discuss my personal views and issues I have with the current Drug Offenders Program in NSW (Compulsory Drug Treatment Program- CDTP).  Just to provide some context first, this is a "punishment" (sentence) given out to drug offenders in NSW instead of going to jail. It is compulsory for those ordered to go, and acts as a rehabilitation centre/program to treat those with drug dependency and works to ultimately deter/abolish drug crime in NSW. Although this sounds promising, and a great initiative for not only the offenders, but also the community, it is grossly restricted in terms of its availability.

In NSW, the only operating facility (shown above) can detain a mere 70 MALE offenders. That is so heavily low and unequal. What about female offenders? I think that, if anything, it should be 35 males/35 females. Furthermore, it is vital that increased funds are pumped into this program as it clearly is an effective policy in place to rehabilitate those who need it most. Therefore, expanding the capacity of the program, to enable the participation of female offenders will enable greater rehabilitation of offenders; especially those most at risk. This is a necessity! and needs to be enacted; in the name of equality and justice for all. Obviously there is an inherent need for equality in the criminal justice system, in terms of equal access to the law and rehabilitation programs.  Thus, greater volumes of participants (of both genders) will reduce the number of people in conventional custody who would better benefit in a drug-specific program and environment which harnesses rehabilitation.

Therefore, I believe that it is essential to reform this policy; and expand this program to benefit more and more drug offenders. Obviously I believe this a no brainer, with the obvious issue being where the funding will come from to maintain, support and staff the rehabilitation of more participants. However, I still think that this is a vital and important initiative that needs to be available for all (depending on the discretion of Judges during the sentencing procedure).


Reference for Text:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/la/latabdoc.nsf/09874fcb6bf62d7bca25739c0023e509/0d137e6aa349c993ca257c130024f6b1/$FILE/Review%20pursuant%20to%20Crimes%20(Administration%20of%20Sentences)%20Act.pdf

Reference for Images:
http://www.foreignprisoners.com/img-loc/parklea_correctional_centre.jpg
http://www.mentalhealthy.co.uk/sites/default/files/Drug%20Rehab.jpg

Mobile Phone Usage whilst Driving

This is always a current topic within the law; and something that I have been asked about many times; about what the relevant laws and regulations are, in terms of using a mobile phone whilst driving; and exactly what the relevant rules and legislation are; and my opinion on the matter. 

Under regulation 300 of the Road Rules Act (NSW) of 2014, the use of a mobile phone whilst driving is actually permitted, if the phone is secured in a mounting device affixed to the vehicle (shown in the image below). If this is done, then the person is legally allowed to make or receive phone calls (via bluetooth), perform audio functions or even as a GPS. Such that the person must not touch the phone at all; or have it resting on a part of their body during the time they are driving. 

I think that this is a reasonable rule; as if you have the phone in your hand; and not in the mounting device, it can cause immediate distractions, placing not only you at risk, but everyone else in the road. Therefore, I believe that it is vital and very important to follow this rule as it is directly in place to protect the lives of everyone on the road. Obviously, the incorrect usage of mobile phone whilst driving, represents negligence and carelessness, as the driver would be heavily distracted; not exercising the right amount of care or attention which would be reasonably expected whilst driving.

However, the part of the law that I do not agree with, is that if you are on your provisional license (P1 or learners) you are NOT to have your phone on at all whatsoever, whilst driving. I believe that P plate drivers should be treated in the same regard as other drivers on the road; seeing as they share the road with everyone else and should be entitled to the same rulings. This is because, if used correctly, the phone is not touched nor does it play a role in distracting the driver completely off the road, if it is in a mounting device. Until this changes, it is important that everyone on the road follows the rules to prevent the likelihood of mobile phones playing a part in accidents whilst driving.

Reference for Text:

http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/s300.html

Reference for Images:

http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Why-You-Shouldn-039-t-Use-A-Mobile-Phone-While-Driving-2220

http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/g/l48AAOSwEK9Tw0Lr/s-l225.jpg
http://net4surf.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Avoid-Mobile.jpg

Clogging of Local Courts

It has come to attention that the most trivial matters (petty crimes) are severely clogging up the local court system- and creating a backlog for months and months. There have been numerous articles recently that have attributed this backlog to be contributed by petty crimes clogging up the justice system.

One in particular; a Lismore lawyer has explained that the increase in random breath testing- has actually resulted in more than 50 people facing drug-driving charges in the Lismore Local court on a Monday. I believe that is an insanely high amount of court appearances for one offence and that this would severely disrupt the administration of criminal justice and clog up the local court system significantly. There needs to be more appropriate methods and reforms to quickly and efficiently deal with these matters in a more faster way or process. Obviously the correct administration of justice needs to be met; in the sense that these offenders need to be charged for their crimes; but there needs to be a more efficient out of court process to combat this issue.

The fact that the Lismore Local Courts (pictured above) are being bombarded and tied up by these minor crimes (in comparison) it is obvious that new measures need to be in place to combat this clogging and burden on the local court system. The Lismore lawyer also explained that most of the charges are for drugs that were taken a few days beforehand- and that most of the drivers weren't impaired at all in relation to their driving ability. Something needs to change to unclog this system.

This video, although relating to Chicago court system, presents that the overburdening of the local court systems around the world is a very inherent problem that needs to be fixed.

Reference for Text:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/drug--driving/6829982?section=nsw

Reference for Image:
http://www.allcourts.com.au/Media/Default/Page/Images/Lismore-Court-House.jpg

Reference for Youtube Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55wR-o4Jt5s

Harming Australians Bill

Today I came across another Bill, this time in the Commonwealth Parliament (in this current session), that I believed was worth talking about. This Bill (Criminal Code Amendment (Harming Australians) 

Bill 2013 (Cth)) aims to amend existing Commonwealth legislation (Criminal Code Act 1995) and was introduced and lobbied by senator Nick Xenophon (on the right).

It is my understanding that the Bill aims to address the issue of causing significant harm to an Australian citizen overseas.  This means that it would allow for the prosecution of individuals who harm Australians outside of Australia (through murder, manslaughter or intentional/reckless behaviour before 1 October 2002). I think that this is a great initiative and Bill that needs to be enacted, as it would ensure that Australian's harmed overseas have access to the same level of justice.

The current law reveals that after 2002, those who harm Australians can be charged, but not those actions that occur before 2002. Therefore, it means it would work retroactively- impacting all those events of harming Australians before 2002. The reason this was first brought in was in response to the Bali Bombings in 2002, but I believe that everyone should have the same rules and levels of justice- such that it would allow for the appropriate prosecution of violent criminals. Essentially, it will expand the volume of involvement of Australian law enforcement, in relation to the victims of violent crimes, before 1 October 2002, outside Australia.

The Above video provides some context on the heartache of the Bali Bombings, and the need for this legislation to be enacted, to provide justice for the families of the victims in other attacks of harming Australians overseas, before 2002.

Reference for Text:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s942

Reference for Image:

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Xenophon.jpg

Reference for Youtube Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGhVtO1kjRU

Smoking/Drinking at the Beach

After this extremely hot Sydney weather we have been having at the moment, I thought it was fitting to talk about the rules, laws and regulations in relation to smoking and drinking at the beach. There is a lot of uncertainty and lack of knowledge on this matter and after some research, it is time to outline exactly what is allowed and what isn't allowed on NSW beaches.

At this present moment, in terms of smoking cigarettes at the beach, it varies between councils and states. A mixture of local government and state action has actually led to widespread banning and restrictions on smoking at numerous Australian beaches. The particular states that have actually enacted legislation to make smoking illegal include Queensland (in 2005) and Western Australia (2010). The fact that these are the only 2 states in the whole of Australia is dreadful. I believe that this practice should be completely outlawed on our beaches as they are public places where families attend. It is impossible to escape the smell and is very selfish and disrespectful to other beachgoers. Despite the lack of legislation in NSW for example, there are council regulations in place, e.g. Manly council have placed a ban on smoking at their public beaches. Manly council was actually the second council in the world to legislate a smoking ban on a public beach through council regulations (2004). Since then 14 NSW councils have adopted these same bans. I think that this pro-activeness needs to be mirrored throughout the country or even introducing Commonwealth legislation to provide nationwide bans on smoking at beaches in NSW and eradicate this disgusting behaviour. So therefore, to sum up, smoking at beaches is usually banned, but it ultimately depends on the council the beach resides in.

Furthermore, the drinking of alcohol is also prohibited on most public beaches across NSW councils (such as Manly) and people who do so, can be fined. This means that you cannot drink on the actual beach, but there are areas on the parkside near the beaches that are not prohibited in some councils. Again, this rule and law applies in a council to council basis (as some councils allow for drinking at the beach with the required permit). I believe that both these laws need to be enforced, as it has been reported that most councils have not issued any fines since the inception of the rules. Thus, certain measures need to be in place/introduced to combat these behaviours.

Reference for Text:
http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-15-smokefree-environment/15-5-outdoor-areas

Reference for Images:
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2010/12/25/1225976/190511-beach-smoking.gif
http://www.lbknews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/beer_on_the_beach_Wallpaper_r86or2.jpg

Gun Laws

19 years after the banning of firearms in Australia; few would deny that we as a country are safer today because of this gun control. We have not had 1 mass shooting since the strict gun laws have been in place (which was brought in, in response to a mass shooting: the "Port Arthur Massacre"). No one could argue that they have saved hundreds if not thousands of lives because of this implementation. This is a clear representation, I believe, of how successful the law can be in protecting society; essentially what it is meant to do, and why it is the foundation upon which society is grounded upon. For that, I commend Australia for this particular law; even Obama has come out and said that the US have to be more like us and introduce tough gun laws, in response to yet another shooting in Oregon.

It is very important to recognise that we were able, as a nation, to swiftly craft laws in quickly banning these weapons and eradicate them from the market (Australian Government bought 60,000 guns swiftly after the massacre in 1996). I admire this. That we can take a stand so quickly and send out a very important message to everyone around the world. Once again, Obama recognises this swift change in laws in response to 1 attack; whilst they have had over 40 mass shootings this year alone; signifying that something needs to be done over there and enough is enough. In NSW, in particular, we have 2 laws that govern the use and purchasing firearms and guns; Firearms Act 1996 and Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. Both are entire acts that govern the use of  guns and make it an offence to be in possession, supplying or using illegal firearms. The photo above clearly shows the success of the implications of the introduction of gun laws in Australia.

This video outlines the success of our gun laws. (More Gun Laws = Fewer Gun Deaths)


I think that we, as a nation, are clear proof of the success of introducing gun laws and how it actually has shown to protect society. Nations like the US need to follow us and mirror our laws; in order to finally abolish, eradicate and prevent these mass shootings from ruining thousands and thousands of families each and every year.

Reference for Text:
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/10/02/australia-did-it--obama-says-on-gun-law.html

Reference for Image:
http://images.theage.com.au/2013/01/13/3950087/353-guns-300x0.jpg

Reference for Youtube Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTZFvtp8-YQ

Mandatory Counselling/Viewing of Ultrasound for Women who Terminate their Pregnancy

Once again, I have stumbled across another current Bill by Fred Nile (pictured to the right), which has prompted me to discuss it. This Bill (Pregnancy Termination (Mandatory Counselling) Bill 2015) was introduced the same day as the Bill in the previous blog post which relates to increasing the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 (both introduced by Fred Nile). Much like that Bill on the drinking age; this one has been denied before, and re-introduced this year.


This Bill proposes amendments to the procedures of terminating a pregnancy. This outlines that the woman who is considering terminating her pregnancy for whatever reason MUST undertake mandatory counselling sessions, as well as viewing an ultrasound of her unborn baby. I think that this an absurd and dreadful proposal that is forcing a woman to go through these procedures; when it must already be a tough time for them. This would take an immense toll on her mental health and I completely disagree with this proposal. It is not pro-choice and takes a disgusting stance on an already serious issue in today's society.

The fact that this proposal will submit the woman through immeasurable pain and possibly making her feel guilty for her actions (even though it is her choice in the matter- no one else) is not how the law should function in our world. We shouldn't have to stoop to these levels- forcing the woman to attend counselling session or viewing images of her unborn baby is just absurd and ludicrous. I think this is a very silly proposal and is not how I pictured the law to operate; to be playing and toying with the emotions of a woman in such a way; to force her to do such things. It is just plain wrong.

Reference for Text:
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/131a07fa4b8a041cca256e610012de17/86865db4fbcb2da0ca257e3c0025c951?OpenDocument

Reference for Images:
http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/1/2/n/l/g/f/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.12nlep.png/1421202992597.jpg
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/sites/default/files/files/styles/large/public/field/image/tumblr_louqj5ibcC1qk48q1o1_500.png

Drinking Age: 18 or 21?

I have recently stumbled across a proposed Bill (Liquor Amendment (Drinking Age) Bill) by Fred Nile in the NSW legislative council that is proposing to amend the drinking age in Australia from 18 to 21 years old. This would involve an amendment to the Liquor Act 2007. 

This has been a key issue raised repeatedly a number of times for a variety of reasons. Such that this isn't the first time Fred Nile has introduced this Bill (he did so back in 2011, and it was promptly rejected). But I believe that the legal drinking age should stay the same, in fact, 29 states in the US have actually lowered the age from 21 (I see this as a growing trend). 

Turning 18 marks an important time in a young persons life. It is seen in Australia as the becoming of an Adult; entering adulthood. You gain a number of responsibilities and freedoms including the right to vote, gamble and drink. Now, especially in a country where individuals are actually legally obliged to vote at 18, I definitely do not think that this Bill will gain any political traction or support.

People are still going to drink no matter what the drinking age is, and I don't see anything changing if the legal age is increased from 18 to 21 as teenagers will still find a way to get their hands on it. I would actually go as far to say that they would want it and yearn for it even more if the age was increased. 

This video showcases some of the opinions of some Australians on this vital question: "Should we raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21?"

I therefore believe that increasing the drinking age will not significantly lower or decrease alcohol-related harm in teens. To combat this issue of intoxication, the Government and NGOs need to focus on the existing measures and policies in place, and work towards consolidating them before ever taking the drastic measure of increasing the legal drinking age; as I believe this will not change much. Therefore, I firmly believe that this is not a necessity in today's society, and we should focus on other means to fix the problem of the harms of alcohol and intoxication.

Reference for Text:
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/131a07fa4b8a041cca256e610012de17/0039557f593ef665ca257e3c0021ec74?OpenDocument

Reference for Image:

http://www.bu.edu/today/files/2010/10/18or21-beerfoam_h.jpg

Reference for Youtube Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM3WzeJ0Btc

"Dine and Dash"

In this blog post, I would like to discuss the issue and concept of "Dining and Dashing," and the legal ramifications that may arise from committing this act. It is my understanding that the term refers to the indecent act of eating out at an establishment ("Dining") and leaving without paying ("Dashing"). The term does not only just refer to specifically eating out at a restaurant it actually entails a range of other offences such as filling up your car with petrol and then leaving without paying.

Therefore, to sum up the term, it involves obtaining a service and leaving without paying. Obviously this is an ethical issue but there are also legal consequences to committing this crime. Contrary to popular belief, this is actually a criminal offence in Australia. For example, looking at the Tasmanian statute; Police Offences Act 1935 section 38A ("Making off without payment") clearly states that a person is guilty of a fine (of up to $1540) or even imprisonment of up to 12 months if you are found to have known that payment on the spot for goods supplied or services completed and then dishonestly make off without paying that agreed fee. However, I think that it must also be noted that if the supply of those goods was illegal, then this section is not legally enforceable.

I believe that the general crux of this legal issue is that someone is clearly taking advantage of a system of trust; that the restaurant for example, expects you to pay for what you eat. It is also interesting to note that many restaurants actually budget for walk-outs, and that they almost expect that this is a regular occurrence. I think that this shouldn't be the case; and that restaurants shouldn't have to worry about such a petty problem. Although some may think that this isn't an issue that needs fixing, I believe that there needs to be more policies and facilities in place to eradicate this behaviour. Those who offend are at an extremely high risk of doing again, as essentially this is theft, and it needs to be treated in the same regard. Offenders will keep committing this crime if they are not caught, so something needs to change!


Reference for Text:
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/poa1935140/s38a.html

Reference for Images:
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/poa1935140/s38a.html
http://dinendash.ca/img/logo.png

Ride Sharing and Uber

The issue of ride sharing and the influence of Uber, is one that has currently caused widespread legal and social concern. At this current moment, the services of Uber are not regulated under current legislation or rulings (essentially it is illegal). However, from the 30th of October the ACT will be the first jurisdiction to regulate their services (allowing ride-sharing services such as Uber, to operate legally)! Ride-sharing drivers will now be allowed to take smartphone application and phone bookings; but only the taxis will be allowed to pick up passengers from the street and taxi ranks.

Furthermore, criminal history and background checks will now be required for all drivers; driver accreditation requirements and fees will also come into force and some Uber drivers will be eligible for workers compensation. I think this is a massive step in the right direction; as these ride-sharing drivers (not just Uber) would continue to push to find different ways and loopholes to get around the system if the market did not become regulated, therefore, I think regulating this market was an extremely important move, and the right decision. Essentially, it is all about offering more choice to consumers; injecting some vital competition into the market.

Personally, I think that Uber is a revolutionary service that changes the transport industry through its low cost and convenience to customers. It has been growing and growing exponentially, as a direct competitor to the traditional taxi service we are all familiar with. The slow, but steady introduction of these services will shake up the taxi system and hopefully lead to the slashing of costs. ACT is the first jurisdiction to regulate these ride sharing activities; and most importantly, will not be the last!

This video provides a bit of context on what Uber do and how they operate.

Reference for Text:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-30/uber-able-to-enter-canberra-markert-from-late-october/6814804

Reference for Image:
https://ticketing.ticketbooth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/uber-app.jpg

Reference for Youtube Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAGQ6Vcuikc

Domestic Violence: Law Reform

I strongly believe that those offenders of domestic abuse and violence should be slammed by the full letter and strength of the law and the legal system. This is because those who undertake these crimes are dangerous, manipulative and deadly people; with the victims left trapped, scared, frightened and petrified forever...

Therefore, I believe an appropriate measure to defeat and eradicate this criminal and immoral behaviour is to introduce key law reform of mandatory sentencing. This would match the recent amendments to one-punch laws (which I covered in an earlier blog post). I firmly stand by this; as I believe that, as mentioned in previous blog posts, I think that the law must always adapt and change to fit the progression of society's views, opinions, moral/ethic standpoints and expectations; otherwise the law would be extremely outdated!

This would combat the variation in the sentences that have been handed out to these offenders recently. People who commit these acts of domestic violence need to have a sentence of general deterrence; that completely matches the utter disdain and disgust the public feels about this issue. This would all be introduced, mainly, in the attempt to discourage and eradicate this behaviour from the community, by sending all offenders to jail (e.g. minimum of 5 years jail for all who are charged with committing domestic violence).

Reference for Text:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-25/dv-offenders-should-face-mandatory-jail-advisor/6803282

Reference for Images:
http://markconner.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54ecc070b883301b7c769085f970b-800wi
http://www.tenancywa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1024px-USMC-101026-M-6457M-002-e1397200186825.jpg

Voluntary Euthanasia

I firmly believe that the laws banning voluntary euthanasia in Australia (“assisted dying”) is absolutely cruel, dangerous and restricting. Fundamental to the functioning of Australian society is the principle concept of choice and respect; governing us as a nation. Terminally ill patients must have the right to choose to die on their own terms, or continue their diminishing quality of life in pain and suffering. We need to respect each individual and ultimately give them the choice to live or die, as it is their life, and is not something the law should have control over. I believe that the legality of this concept is derived from religious views and human ethics/morality from hundreds of years ago, and we need to abolish these prehistoric and outdated laws. Once again, I stress the notion, that as a society with changing views and expectations on certain topics; the law and legal system has to keep up with these changes and make amendments to fit our overall views as a nation. 

Providing these terminally ill patients with the dignity and respect they deserve, and go out on their own terms, especially if they have no prospect of recovery; is vital to this concept. Why should the law have an impact on how they live the rest of their lives? They are the one going through the constant pain and suffering, along with their families as they watch their loved ones deteriorate and break down. I am not saying that all patients in palliative care or those with no recovery prospects, should end their life, I am merely suggesting that they have the choice to do so. That is all it is. A choice. Their decision to make. We need to treat them with the utmost respect, and allow them to salvage their dignity.

It is all about giving them the OPTION. nothing more. nothing less. They deserve this. No person should have to be forced to go through this prolonged suffering and extreme discomfort. It just feels like torture. I just don’t understand how we haven’t introduced voluntary euthanasia laws (over 30 attempts in the past 15 years have all been rejected, despite 70% of the public are in favour towards the legalisation)…. It is time to make a change. Some form of legalisation needs to be introduced!

Above is an important video showcasing these ideas represented in my blog entry.

Reference for Text:

http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/crusade-to-bring-back-euthanasia/story-fnk0b1zt-1227540886380

Reference for Images:

http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef010536a6fc70970c-pi

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Dignity_in_Dying_logo.png

Reference for Youtube Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4fsrcWJRPo

Tougher Bail Laws

I think that it is fantastic that the promised introduction of tougher bail laws has been discussed by the NSW Government and Mike Baird in direct response to the Sydney siege attack by Man Monis. It clearly shows that Australia’s legal system is moving strongly, in the right direction. I passionately believe that the fundamental concept behind the functioning of the law, must be grounded by society’s changing views and expectations. Because, at the end of the day, it is us; society, who is influenced by the legal system.

That is why I think that the promised introduction of stronger bail laws, in particular, relating to the automatic refusal of bail in NSW to those suspected criminals linked to terrorism or violent extremism is very important in reducing the risk of terrorism and ensure the protection of everyone in our country.

I believe that this is will act as a very heavy deterrent in the matter of terrorist activities and prevent similar attacks like the Sydney siege by Man Monis late last year. These laws have been referred to as the “common sense” laws and I rightly agree with that statement. It is clear common sense that these laws be introduced because those who are on terrorism charges pose a very high and direct risk to everyone; and we as a country, need to take a stand and prevent future attacks from happening. 

They should not be given the benefit of the doubt by the justice system because, even though they are innocent till proven guilty, the legal system must have an inherent duty to protect society, and allowing those offenders out on bail, poses a huge risk of them carrying out their proposed attacks. Although the likelihood of that happening may not be high, there is no benefit in releasing them out on bail.


Reference for  Text:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mike-baird-unveils-bail-crackdown-for-suspects-with-terrorism-links-20150828-gj9xly.html

Reference for Images:
http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/h/s/6/5/f/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gj9xly.png/1440736865920.jpg
http://www.skynews.com.au/content/dam/skynews/news/national/2015/01/27/skynews_1741404837.jpg/jcr:content/renditions/skynews.img.1200.745.jpeg

Live Baiting Laws

Live baiting within the sport of greyhound racing is one of the darkest and unlawful secrets in Australian sport. I believe it is an extremely barbaric practice; through the use of  live animals (piglets, possums and rabbits)  being used as bait to train greyhounds, with evidence suggesting that this is turning into a widespread practice.

It is animal cruelty! putting this successful industry to shame. Below showcase 2 videos that provide alarming video evidence and views on this disgusting practice!

I believe that the relevant law in NSW, related to this crime falls under s 530 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and s 18 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW). This is because live baiting is an extreme act of animal cruelty and those who have been alleged to have subjected these animals to this, need to be prosecuted under the relevant laws stated above. 

I believe that there needs to be more protection for the welfare of animals within the greyhound industry; and tougher preventative measure to eliminate this practice. Such that tougher policies and legislation need to be in place to prosecute those involved and deter future behaviour in relation to animal cruelty; and more specifically within the sport of greyhound racing. Animal cruelty is a criminal behaviour that needs to properly regulated and monitored to successfully administer correct criminal justice and charge those who are abusing the system. For example, to combat this challenge in the administration of criminal justice, stricter penalties need to be in place (i.e mandatory minimum sentencing and fines) to send the appropriate message that this practice is wrong and needs to be outlawed. 

Reference for Text:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-11/live-baiting-laws-greyhound-racing-pass-sa-parliament/6767236

Reference for Youtube Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9w6F2yaoNw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpOVqUkLWVo

Relationship between Consent and Sexual Assault

I believe, through my research, that the meaning of consent is a diverse, complex term; yet quite easy to decipher. It essentially refers to when someone voluntarily and freely agrees to a sexual act. Within this, it is apparent that consent is negated if the person is unconscious, asleep, intoxicated or threatened by force, etc.

It is through my understanding that in all sexual assault cases,  the prosecution must prove that the complainant did not consent to the sexual act. Thus, revealing the seriousness and extent the role of consent plays in all sexual assault cases, such that there is a specific section under statute law, directly relating to consent in sexual assault cases, in the Crimes Act under section 61HA.

A clear example of this in practice involves Billy Tamawiwy (pictured on the right), a university student in ACT. It is believed that he set up a fake Facebook account pretending to be a women, to lure men for sex as an act of revenge. It is alleged he targeted and deceived up to 7 men with the fake account. The most serious charge involves luring a man to have sexual intercourse with him, through the fake account, under the expectation, that the man thought that it would lead to the promise of sex with the “fake” woman. 

Do you think this constitutes consent?  My understanding is that the man did agree voluntarily to have sexual intercourse with Tamawiwy (only under the expectation that he would be given the woman of the “fake” profile). However, the key element of this case is that the man was deceived by Tamawiwy. Therefore, I think that because of this deception; it is clear that this now negates consent, and thus, constitutes sexual assault (“rape”), as this is a clear abuse of trust and authority, clearly defined under section 61HA of the Crimes Act of NSW.


I believe that mandatory sentencing should be introduced for crimes that involve sexual assault without consent, as this is a very important issue. This is because the victims of the situation are scarred for life. There is no forgetting these horrible acts, and heavy deterrence within the law is needed to fully eradicate and remove this behaviour from society.

Consent is a very very important concept that needs to be respected and followed. Above is a very important video that explains the notion and relationship between consent and sexual assault very well. 

Reference for Text:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-23/man-pretended-to-be-a-woman-on-facebook-as-revenge-court-hears/6799764

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s61ha.html

Reference for Image:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5730942-3x4-340x453.jpg

Reference for Youtube Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XiMtPFJigc

One Punch Laws

The issue of one punch deaths has become a reoccurring topic and issue; presenting a clear challenge in the administration of criminal justice in Australia. I believe that the law must adapt to societies’ changing expectations and views, and the introduction of mandatory minimum sentencing of 8 years imprisonment for one punch attacks that result in death, is a huge step in the right direction, in eradicating this dreadful behaviour and bringing justice to the victim's families and society alike.

An example of a real-life event that has influenced these changes in the law, involves the death of Brazilian man Lucio Rodrigues. Nicholas Lambaditis pleaded guilty to manslaughter after assaulting Mr Rodrigues outside a pub in Sydney. Lambaditis punched Mr Rodrigues in the face, in an alcohol fuelled unprovoked attack, causing him to fall to the footpath. He died two days later in hospital. Lambaditis was sentenced to a maximum of nine years prison, following the tough new “one punch” laws to deter future attacks. Below is the news report (video) directly relating to this particular attack.

My understanding is that the relevant law in NSW in relation to this attack involves s25A(1)(a)-(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Lambaditis is guilty of the offence (assault causing death) under the subsection of assaulting another person intentionally, by hitting them with any part of their body, resulting in the death of that person, the assault is inexcusable by law. 

These attacks are inexcusable and this event is just one example of someone prosecuted under the new mandatory sentencing. However, I strongly believe that further consolidations within the law need to be evaluated and enacted to further deter this unlawful behaviour and prevent future attacks. Essentially, the introduction of mandatory minimum sentence is a very strong step in the right direction towards abolishing this disturbing behaviour; and represents a clear example of how the law is working towards mirroring society's expectations and views.

Reference for Text:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-12/nicholas-lambaditis-jailed-for-manslaughter-of-brazilian-man/6542452

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/

Reference for Image:

http://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/miscellaneous/sc000090_nsw-alcohol-laws-concepts_1180x300.jpg

Reference for Youtube Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1YWiw3b2eE

Oversupply of Lawyers

Australian law universities are turning out graduates at record rates. Therefore, I can happily make the assumption that the direct result of this; is creating a heavy imbalance between the supply and demand for law graduates. Obviously, one needs experience to get a job but one needs a job to get experience. This statement raises alarming questions, producing rise to a number of "highly exploitative business model(s)."

For example, recently, law firm AdLawgroup in Adelaide was looking at offering mentoring for graduate law students. This comes at a catch. $22,000 to fund each graduate. Coming out of the graduates pocket, reportedly used to fund supervision, mentoring and educational programs. That is a ridiculous amount of money! I can't think of any other profession that does this.. Up until the last couple days (21st September 2015), this system has been close to implementation. However, thankfully, this has now been abolished, amid obvious scrutiny and questioning of the value of this type of scheme. This is just one example of a huge law firm trying to solve a very inherent problem....

I think that the fact that those law students who want a job; will now need to "buy" themselves a job is just ridiculous. This however, reveals a very alarming problem. The oversupply of lawyers. It seems that too many students are being admitted into university courses for law, ultimately making the market even more fiercely competitive (on top of what it already is). It is reported that more than 2000 law graduates in South Australia have "no immediate employment prospects".  Aspiring lawyers need to be aware that their chances of working as a barrister or solicitor are now very very problematic due to this oversupply of law graduates; and not enough jobs to accommodate this boost. There just simply is not enough jobs going around. The fact that this is appearing to be more and more acceptable; symbolises not only the oversupply of law graduates, but the lack of jobs available and the competitiveness of the market. This problem cannot be fixed overnight. Part of the long term response needs to involve increasing numbers of such jobs, but that is easier said than done.

Reference for Text:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/for-22k-law-firm-will-mentor-grads-to-practising-certificates/story-e6frg97x-1227495639256

Reference for Images:
http://abovethelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/need-a-job-LF-300x190.jpg
http://www.afr.com/content/dam/images/j/6/y/i/u/image.related.afrArticleLead.620x350.j6yiw.png/1423685406317.jpg

Welcome to my Blog!

Hello Everyone and Welcome!

This is just going to be a short introduction on what this blog will entail and the content produced.

My Name is Cameron and I am a Law student at Macquarie University. This blog has been created to provide up to date information and knowledge on the Law, and current events within the legal system in Australia.

I have an overruling passion for equality and justice for all; to be achieved through a sustainable and ever-changing legal system. I hope to facilitate this passion in the form of this blog. The theme and overall topic of the blog is "Law and Current Events." Thus, this blog will provide the foundation for discussion on my thoughts on how the law is adapting and changing to suit society's needs and concerns. It is important to discuss this topic, through current and contemporary events in today's world.

Therefore, this blog will contain an expression of my opinions and views on recent legal materials and current events in the legal system, derived from cases, legislation, amendments and news/media articles that I come across.

I am excited for this new social and intellectual challenge, and will be updating regularly, as well as linking my recent blog posts and information on the subject matter, through my twitter account @CameronsLawBlog.

I look forward to this experience!

This blog has been created for ISYS100 Assessment 2, Class 09, Group 8 ("Law and Current Events")
Cameron Munro (44620187)

Reference for above pictures:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/media/photos/criminal-law-policy.jpg

http://seoandy.andykinsey.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/law-firm-seo-1080x675.jpg