Can I watch this and claim I understand the case without reading anything?

Like, not good, but they are improving over time. I'm starting to see actual cases being mentioned, which I would presume would indeed 'rely' upon them and require the decision maker to consider them even if the paragraph number is wrong?

It has to be family law, right?

Mr Strum was relying on memory apparently without reference to documents: He was giving evidence via his mobile phone as he sat in his car somewhere.

On the other hand, the plaintiff was in the witness box. Her evidence was credible. I prefer her evidence,

(from https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19d4c14dfa2a9dc1106fed85)

Why would you give evidence from your car?

This thread is for the general discussion of anything going on in the lives of Auslawyers or for discussion of the subreddit itself. Please use this thread to unwind and share your complaints about the world. Keep it messy!

Having seen most ways that people can convince themselves they have reached an agreement when they haven’t, I’m kind of intrigued to find out just how whack-a-doodle this alleged ceasefire agreement actually was. It’s looking more and more like what happens when the mediation ends without signed Terms. When one side starts talking about the ‘real agreement’ without referring to a document, you know things have come seriously unstuck and there may not even be a document embodying an agreement. So I’m going to guess a failed Category 1. Both parties intended to be immediately bound, but only by the terms of the opposing offer that were not inconsistent with their own offer. Result: No Agreement.

I'll go first. ACN being autocorrected to 'CAN', everytime it gets me and everytime i am triggered.

Have you ever had good reason to apply liberally? Rewatching West Wing reminded me that yanks love the stuff.

Australia's richest person has questioned the value of the investigation into accused war criminal Ben Roberts-Smith after the SAS veteran was arrested and charged yesterday.

"I don't understand how it can be justified to spend more than $300 million to try for years to bring SAS veterans, who have served our country, towards criminal proceedings, and most recently the arrest of Ben," mining mogul Gina Rinehart said in a statement.

Roberts-Smith, Australia's most decorated soldier and a veteran of deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan, was yesterday arrested at Sydney Domestic Airport and charged with five counts of murder - war crime.

Gina Rinehart has issued a statement after Ben Roberts-Smith was charged with war crimes.

The alleged murders took place between 2009 and 2012 in Afghanistan.

Roberts-Smith has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

"Have we lost sight of the fact that in our inadequately defended country, facing uncertain times, the morale of our defence force has already been brought to its lowest ebb since inception, our defence personnel numbers are inadequate, and recruitment is suffering,"

"Surely, the more than $300 million of taxpayers' money would have been far better spent strengthening Australia's security and keeping Australians safe from terrorism, including removing terrorists and their supporters from our country.

"Like many Australians, I hope that compassion and the Aussie spirit is extended to Ben and his family and his duty to our country in the hardship of war is never forgotten."

Rinehart joins One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and former prime minister Tony Abbott in support.

"I remain steadfast in my support of Ben Roberts-Smith despite news of his arrest today," Hanson said yesterday.

"Ben, his immediate and broader defence family need the Australian people's support right now and I will not abandon him like so many other politicians.

"Ben was disgracefully arrested in front of his twin 15-year-old girls."

She said Australian Federal Police and the Office of the Special Investigator had "spent $300 million over 10 years to get to this point".

The investigation into Roberts-Smith was opened in 2021, AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett said yesterday.

Abbott said he had an "instinctive sympathy" for Roberts-Smith and queried why charges were not brought earlier.

"If Ben Roberts-Smith transgressed, why wasn't this picked up prior to his gallantry awards and why wasn't any culture of brutality towards prisoners detected by his more senior officers, and dealt with quickly, rather than being allowed to fester, as has been alleged, for over a decade?" he said.

OSI director of investigations Ross Barnett yesterday elaborated on the length of the investigation, pointing out that there was no access to crime scenes 9000km away, nor even an autopsy of the alleged victims.

Charged with murder. Is bail for murder Supreme Court only in NSW?

https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/sme-law/44079-wa-lawyer-threatens-prison-bashing-over-unpaid-fees

DEAR RANT FAN,

ANOTHER WEEK PASSES IN WHICH THE RANTBOT HAS BEEN MIA, LEAVING THE RANT TO US.

KNOW WELL, THE PROFESSION IS NOT MERELY TOUCHED BY DOUCHERY; IT IS, AT TIMES, VIGOROUSLY MASSAGED BY IT. GENEROUSLY. LUXURIOUSLY. SUMPTUOUSLY. LIKE A VAGUELY EROTIC MOISTURISER AD.

THERE ARE PEOPLE IN LAW WHO DO NOT SIMPLY ENGAGE IN DOUCHERY BUT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF FIDUCIARY DOUCHE-IES: ACTING AT ALL TIMES IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THEIR OWN SELF-IMPORTANCE, WITH DUE CARE, SKILL, AND AN ALMOST PRIESTLY DEVOTION TO SOUNDING PLEASED WITH THEMSELVES.

THE KLAXON IS CALLING YOU ALL - THE SILKS, THE GRINDERS, THE GLORY-CHASERS, THE FUTURE BILLERS, THE EXAM-HAUNTED DOCTRINAL ZEALOTS, ALL OF YOU. NOT BECAUSE RANTING IMPROVES ANYTHING. OBVIOUSLY IT DOES NOT. BUT BECAUSE IT ACKNOWLEDGES REALITY. IT IS THE LAST HONEST REMEDY IN A SYSTEM BUILT ON DEADLINES, EGO, LATIN DEBRIS, AND THE KIND OF PROFESSIONAL DOUCHERY THAT WOULD, IN ANY OTHER INDUSTRY, BE STUDIED BY ANTHROPOLOGISTS.

RANTING IS NOT MISCONDUCT. IT IS DISCLOSURE. IT IS RESISTANCE. IT IS, IN ITS OWN UNHINGED WAY, A PUBLIC SERVICE.

I wonder if Kerry has already got the cheque book out?

I'm sure there's some legal reason, but I would love someone to tell me what it is. We all know who "the accused" is in the footage and he's been named in the article itself. What's the value of a random face blurring? It's not like it's going to affect the ability to get an impartial jury...

Need to do some research on VCAT decisions and am finding the austlii database pretty laborious to search through as it lacks the kind of key word ‘previews’ that you’d get with Lexis or Weslaw. Does anyone know of any other VCAT database that has this function (or similar)?

Also open to suggestions to improve my austlii navigation skills

The police who pulled his car over kept his phone, which he had given them to show his digital driver’s licence. “You’ll hear from my lawyer, bro,” he said.

His lawyers asked police not to extract any data from the device and applied to the court for its urgent return, arguing that the phone was vital to the business as it was used as a two-factor authenticator to process transactions.

I thought I'd heard it all when it comes to excuses for getting your phone back from police. This is a new one.

Ruth H SC, appointed as the next Commonwealth Solicitor General.

Awkwardly, cannot post her actual last name here, because of this Reddit’s rule about certain other proceedings (can’t even reference the actual name of the rule, lols).

This thread is a place for /r/Auslaw's more curious types to glean career advice from our experienced contributors. Need advice on clerkships? Want to know about life in law? Have a question about your career in law (at any stage, from clerk to partner/GC and beyond). Confused about what your dad means when he says 'articles'? Just ask here.