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