Posts Tagged ‘law’

Apparently not, if you’re a man with an intellectual disability and a man who (I’m guessing, given his country of origin) happens to have black skin.

For once, the first part of the story is a pretty good summary:

AARON ODDIE was on an outing with his carer when they visited an upmarket city boutique. But staff at the Tag Heuer watch and jewellery store on King Street thought the pair looked suspicious and hit the hold-up alarm.

Three police cars raced to the store, and officers detained and searched Mr Oddie, who is intellectually disabled, and his social worker, Michael Lassanah.

Mr Lassanah had no chance to explain that he wanted to buy a watch; the men were accused of trying to rob the store.

”If you want to tell your side of the story,” one officer said, ”I think you should say it in court.” So Mr Lassanah did.

He and Mr Oddie sued the State of NSW and the owners of the Tag Heuer shop for false imprisonment and defamation over the incident in June 2008. A District Court judge, Judith Gibson, has awarded him $30,000 in damages, and Mr Oddie $40,000.


Read Full Post »

A tale of two legal systems.

In each legal system, there is a woman has been sexually assaulted.

Each woman is subjected to some sort of abuse by the person who is supposed to be prosecuting the sexual assault.

The similarities end there.


Read Full Post »

A woman is suing a bus company which refused to take her wheelchair (and so would not transport her).

Gemma Namey, a solicitor with [Public Interest Advocacy Centre, which is representing the woman], said the case could have major implications. ”This is a first, we believe, as there has been no previous test to enforce the standard,” she said.

One to watch, for those of you interested in accessible public transport.

Read Full Post »

A Bill has been introduced into NSW Parliament which will alter the categories of people who are ineligible for jury duty. Relevant links are below.

In summary (ie why I am writing about this), having a disability will no longer be a blanket reason for ineligibility.

To explain the current position (from the government’s Agreement in Principle speech):

Under the existing legislation, three schedules to the Act provide bases for not serving on a jury: some people are disqualified, some ineligible, and some have a right to claim exemption. Disqualification essentially arises from past criminal conduct. Those who are ineligible cannot serve if they are summoned. This group includes the Governor, the Ombudsman, judicial officers and police officers, and those who cannot read or write English sufficiently, or are too sick, infirm or disabled, to discharge the duties of a juror.

And the new position (from the same source):

Two groups currently listed as ineligible will now have to show cause to be excused. They are a person who is unable to read or understand English, and a person who is unable, because of sickness, infirmity or disability, to discharge the duties of a juror. The Disability Council supported removing the ineligibility of those who are disabled, for example, on the basis that it remedies “an unjustified, outdated belief that people with a disability are unable to fulfil juror duties”. Clearly, a number of people who were excused from service under the current rule will still be excused for good cause, but the change reflects a principled move away from statutory excusal to showing good cause in each case.

To be honest, I’m not sure how much of a practical problem the current position causes. But, people being people, I suspect that if you show up to jury duty with a visible/evident/obvious disability,* someone would question you about that and maybe tell you that you are ineligible, or suggest that you could be ineligible if you got a note from your doctor. That suggestion would be based on the suggester’s assumptions about you rather than any actual evidence as to whether you are, in fact, unable to discharge a juror’s duties.


Read Full Post »

[TRIGGER WARNING for forced detention following diagnosis of mental illness.]

Imagine a world in which you could be held by a government agency, against your will, for up to a month.

If you have a mental illness, that is now a real possibility.

Deborah Snow has reported on changes for the SMH – that’s actually how I heard about this – and has some interviews with various people. In summary: the doctors who are quoted are universally opposed to the changes. There’s only one person in the article who supports the changes:

The head of the tribunal, Greg James, a former judge, rejects the criticisms. He said patients retain a right under the Mental Health Act to call in the tribunal at any time to examine their case.

He argues the changes will avoid the many adjournments which occur now, where doctors tell magistrates they are not ready to seek a formal ruling.


Read Full Post »

Rosalind Croucher is undoubtedly an influential, intelligent and highly-placed woman. She is currently the President of the Australian Law Reform Commission and before that, was Dean of Law at Macquarie University.

Justinian has profiled her this week.

Of note, the following quotes:

Who has been the most influential person in your life?
My mum – she’s amazing. She writes poetry and novels on any surface that will record her thoughts and can make a meal for a regiment out of whatever happens to be in the cupboard or fridge at that moment.

What is your greatest fear?
Heights and losing my mum.

What would your epitaph say?
I hope to earn this one: ‘She was so like her mother.’

Croucher is a mother herself, and acknowledgement of the influence of motherhood on her professional career is also clear in the profile.

Read Full Post »

This makes me so angry!

I agree with a lot of what tigtog says in the linked post, and also Michael Brull’s post at Overland.

I did read through all of the reasons for sentence [NB: link is a pdf], and I have some further comments arising out of that.


Read Full Post »

Yet another reason I can’t see myself bringing myself to vote for the Libs at the next NSW election (not that I think I’ll be able to bring myself to vote ALP, either): Barry O’Farrell’s interesting take on the criminal justice system:

If he (Williams) had a criminal record, what’s he doing on the street in the first place?

Bazza, you do know that most people convicted of crimes are not locked up for the rest of their lives?

In any case, his defence of the police chase re responsibility for the crash is weak. The chase “just moments” before the crash. I’m sure that the driver was able to read the minds of the police force and knew absolutely that they weren’t chasing him any more. /sarcasm


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: