June 15, 2018 9:30AM

KC The Atreorgan

Law Practice Talks

About Justice Today

How We Contribute to Your Practice

With the right knowledge.
With abundant experience.
With a penchant for winning.

Schedule

9:30-11AM

Filing reports and legal forms

11-1:30AM

client meetings

1:30-3AM

moot court sessions

3-4:30AM

client meetings

4:30-6AM

session planning

Speakers

Eric Carmen

Partner at MMV

Jennifer Grey

Partner at BOL

Kelly Bishop

Partner at PMA

Neal Jones

Partner at LVR

A case of what could have been

High Court

Australia is known for a lot of things. But one thing that resonates throughout the world about Australia is it the wildlife and nature. All of that could have come crashing down if the Tasmanian government had its way. Tasmania wanted to build a hydroelectric dam across Gordon River. Governments build dams almost everywhere, but the big hurdle that awaited Tasmania was the fact that the Gordon River was a World Heritage site.

What the Tasmanian Government didn’t expect was the Federal Government to take such interest in the case and oppose a project that usually has the backing of both the administrative and federal governments. But the Federal government argued that such a travesty could greatly alter the geo-political landscape of the country and will open up the opportunity for corporates to seize natural habitats for corporate gain. Although the hydroelectric plant could have greatly increased the power reserves of the country along with water reserves; the federal government could not let precedence to occur where natural habitats where destroyed for the gain of governments and people.

court

The case was taken to the Australian High Court, and the federal government had an ace up their sleeve. Australia is obligated by the World Heritage Convention to protect sites of such importance from human and corporate activity that greatly dangered the site. But on the other hand, Tasmania argued the benefits of building a dam that can greatly benefit the people. The high court was divided over the facts of the case; with one side arguing over the benefits for the human population while the other side was arguing about the preservation of natural habitats and world heritage sites.

The votes swung in favour of the federal government after the inception of the World Heritage Properties Convention of 1983. The federal government won the case by 4 votes to 3; making it one of the most prolific high profile cases to ever get down to 1 vote difference. The case which was won in 1983 set a legal precedent that has greatly preserved the Australian wilderness let alone the world heritage site. It was a sheer act of nobility that needs to be lauded. If the federal government never took Tasmania to court then we could be witnessing an entirely different type of Australia now; one that might be economically rich but poor in terms of nature and no one would want that scenario.

Crazy Australian Laws Part II

law

We are sure our previous article peaked your interest when it comes to crazy laws in Australia, and we have stepped things up. We actually found a ton of crazy laws, but we are only putting forward 10 in total. We have covered five already, and we ourselves can’t contain the excitement. Without further ado, here is our finale for the crazy law series.

1. Enlightening

How many people does it take to change a light bulb in Australia? Well, only one but that one person needs to be a certified electrician. Talk about buzz kill, but we are all in for letting the authorities take care of the hard issues in life but seriously why does this law even exist?

2. The Dark Arts

Dark arts

So you’re a certified tarot card reader who is looking to make a quick buck; sorry to crash your party but Australia is not the place for you. There is a law that says that tarot card reading is against the law as it is apparently a form of witchcraft. For a nation that is considerably more advanced than many developing nations, such a notion is archaic.

3. Who are you?

If you ever wanted to stake out someone or sneak around somewhere or even pull a prank on someone by wearing a disguise? Then make sure to have a license stating that you are allowed to have a disguise; because in Australia it is against the law to own a disguise without a license. So in theory, you can’t run around dressed up as a clown like your American counterparts but let’s be honest are you really missing out on much?

4. What the pee?

Say you really need to pee and you end up at a bunk to find all the urinals are in use. Then you can pee on the rear left tyre of your truck in such a circumstance. We have so many questions as to why a law even exists in the first place. We are wondering who put forth this law and whether people debated on which tyre to pee on? We are in absolutely fits at the possibility of a minister or a head of state signing off on this law.

5. Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na. NO

It is against the law to dress up as the much loved Batman and Joker duo for any occasion. Clearly, Australia is team Superman.

Crazy Australian Laws Part I

law

Australia is a country that needs to be experienced to be understood. And that is the mantra for things that are quintessentially Australian. Australia has some of the weirdest laws, and we have found you some of the craziest laws you will ever find. We have split our finds into two articles. Read both parts to have a joy ride like no other, at least when it comes to the Australian legal system.

1. 50kg of what?

We get it, being in 50 kilos of cocaine is definitely against the law, but Australia has stepped things up when it comes to weird laws. In Western Australia, an individual is breaking the law if he or she possesses 50 kilos and more of potatoes. I mean we totally understand that one person should not have the right to eat that much mash or fries.

2. Fashion Police

The fashion police in other countries are usually a part of the media unless we are talking about a totalitarian government. But Australia’s fashion police is the police itself. Believe it or not but you cannot wear hot pink pants after midday on Sunday. We are totally in favour of this law because the hot pink hot pants are a crime against fashion but actually having a law against them is taking things too far.

3. Stop horsing around

Bars and pubs are required to take care of the horses of their customers. So in essence, a pub will be in hot water if they don’t have a service that takes care of horses while the customers indulge inside. I cannot begin to imagine the scenes at a posh bar when a customer arrives in a horse. If you have come across such instances; do let us know.

4. Bad Taste in Music

music

There is an actual law that makes it illegal to listen to a profane song in the presence of others. While researching, we had actually hoped that the law was more specific to all bad songs; we were particularly thinking of JB, but I suppose we’ll have to keep dreaming.

5. Wait, What?

There is a law that is paradoxical in nature; it basically states that being drunk in a pub is against the law. I mean where else would you be drunk? On the roads? We are as confused as you when it comes to this law in particular.

That’s a wrap; hope you have enjoyed this article and we hope that we tickled some of your funny bones. Check out our other article as well.

Intent before the fact

famous-court-cases

One of the most high profile cases in Australian Legal history is the case of the State against five men who were accused of accumulating a ton of bomb-making material along with instructions and layouts which could have deteriorated Australia from within. The curious case that lasted for ten months and took the jury a month to reach a verdict actually had no evidence that directly linked the group to any of the aforementioned activities. The prosecution relied on countless exhibits and hours of surveillance footage along with intercepted phone recordings to put forth their case for the jury. The defence in all respect was solid because the case that was charged against them was on a possibility and not on directly approved guilt. The stage was set for one of the longest cases in Australian legal history with more than a few eyebrows raised with the prosecution trying to prove intent before the crime even occurred.

The jury was put through a gruesome trial with the case being examined under a microscope both within the walls of the court and outside the walls of the court. It took the combined efforts of the jury and the courts to establish that the verdict needs to be based on the evidence put forward by the prosecution and not what was said in the media. But the jury shouldn’t have worried about the amount of evidence that was going to be placed before them. The jury was subjected to 3000 exhibits of evidence, 30 days of surveillance footage and 1080 minutes of circumvented phone conversations. The Government took added precaution for the high profile case and ensured that safety and security was the taken care of by having the case heard in a maximum security court designed for special cases in Sydney.

Famous cout cases

The public opinion was split in the middle with one side stating that the offenders be punished for their intent to carry out what could have been the largest act of terrorism on Australian soil while the supporters of the accused stated that unless and until a crime was committed, they are not guilty. The jury decided in favour of the public that was crying out for a guilty verdict after a month of closing statements. The time for jury deliberation is one of the longest in Australian history, and many believe that they guilty were rightly prisoned.

RSVP

Copyright © 2018 kc-theatreorgan.org. All rights reserved.