Suchergebnisse

A constitutional focus is applied to a consideration of the concept of "the people" & their role in Australia's evolving deliberative democracy in light of the persistence of the monarchy in the body politic. Following a brief explication of the concept of "the people" & their ambiguous position in the Australian constitutional landscape, a particular manifestation of the people is examined in terms of the constitutional notions of sovereignty & public trust. It is contended that these approaches offer an adequate understanding of the foundational role of the people; however, using this idea in other than an aspiration form foregrounds issues of political representation & democracy. Attention is given to Dicey's notions of parliamentary sovereignty & supreme court challenges to it, before addressing Australian republicanism & the public trust vis-a-vis the judiciary. J. Zendejas

Considers the changing nature of British subject-hood in Australia, which preceded citizenship for the first half of the 20th century. Legislation departing from the old common law notion of subject-hood by simple birth & allegiance is traced to the first Naturalization Act in 1870 & carried on in Dominion laws that generated a problematic common code system. The politics surrounding the introduction of a Citizenship Act in Australia in 1948 is related, highlighting the issue of race that underpinned the Australian notion of British subject status based on the 1870 act. The implications of the act center on what the notion of "British" then means if members of the British Commonwealth separated themselves into distinct nationalities; with the failure of the common code came the end of the Empire. Changes in the Nationality & Citizenship Act of 1949 are noted, & it is suggested that Australians often confuse the idea of independence with exclusiveness in their understanding of independent citizenship. This exclusionary nationalism clashes somewhat with the process of globalization, which has wrought a notion of citizenship that harkens back to the old notion of British subject. Such a global or cosmopolitan citizenship might serves as an alternative model to the Australian approach. J. Zendejas

Compares the Canadian & Australian legal traditions -- both premised on the British common law traditions of judicial precedent -- by way of the law of sexual assault, highlighting the parallel development of corroboration doctrine & the evidentiary prescriptions constructed by legislators, lawyers, & judges. R. v. Sullivan (1913), decided in Perth, Western Australia, & Hubin v. the King (1927), decided in Winnipeg, Manitoba, are scrutinized for the judicial reasoning arising from sexual assault proceedings that typified trials focused on the doctrine of corroboration. It is argued that one idea active in criminal law during the early 20th century was that women & children lacked credibility when it came to testifying about sexual assault. The two 13-year-old plaintiffs are characterized as highly credible, particularly relative to the defendants. However, the doctrine of corroboration made it far more difficult to secure convictions in cases of carnal knowledge of young girls. The kind of additional evidence required to meet the standard of corroboration is considered, arguing that its legal definition did not entirely accord with the contemporary parlance. How the doctrine of corroboration was handled during each trial is then examined in detail, demonstrating the narrow interpretation of mandatory statutory corroboration provisions by appellate judges who overturned the initial convictions out of concern for potential false accusations. The deep suspicion accorded the testimony of women & girls underpinned a whittling down of the doctrine of corroboration such that the credibility of female plaintiff's was easily dismissable while the testimony of guilty men weighed more heavily in the decision. J. Zendejas