LCA opposes mandatory minimums The Law Council of Australia will tell a Senate inquiry into the need for a nationally-consistent approach to alcohol-fuelled violence today that mandatory minimum penalties for alcohol-fuelled violence offences should be repealed. The peak body for Australian lawyers emphasised that mandatory sentencing is not effective as a deterrent or consistent with rule of law principles. Here is the LCA media release (15 Apr 16).

Tendency & coincidence in High Court

go here The High Court today delivered judgment in IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14 – an appeal from the NT Supreme Court. In it, the Court held that when determining the “probative value” of evidence under the Evidence Act, a trial judge must proceed on the assumption that the jury will accept the evidence, and as such it follows that no question as to credibility or reliability of the evidence can arise.

binäre optionen positive erfahrungen However the Court also held, by majority, that evidence from a complainant adduced to show an accused’s sexual interest can generally have limited, if any, probative value.

New book on interlocutory appeals

source url A new book, Interlocutory Criminal Appeals is now out by Thomson Reuters. A special 20% discount is available to Criminal Barristers if ordered directly with the contact below by 10 May 2016. The foreword by Justice Weinberg reads, “Every criminal lawyer, worth his or her salt, should turn to this book for guidance through the unruly thicket of legislation and case law that now governs appeals of this nature.” To order, contact Johannes Christmann on

Sentencing statistics – SACStat

The Sentencing Advisory Council has released updated higher courts sentencing statistics on SACStat, the Council’s online statistical tool. SACStat – Higher Courts now covers sentencing for the five years to 30 June 2015. It presents aggregate data for nearly 200 offences sentenced in the Supreme and County Courts of Victoria.

SACStat is suitable for tablet devices, increasing its usability by legal practitioners in court.

Both SACStat and Sentencing Snapshots contain data on sentence type and sentence quantum (sentence length or fine amount) for cases and charges of a particular offence. However, important differences between the two products include:

  • the range of offences (SACStat – Higher Courts covers 198 offences compared with 31 offences for Sentencing Snapshots)
  • the currency of data (SACStat – Higher Courts is updated annually and Sentencing Snapshots are updated every second year)
  • offender demographics (SACStat – Higher Courts presents data according to the age and gender of offenders)
  • longitudinal data (Sentencing Snapshots present data disaggregated by financial year).

SACStat can be accessed from the SAC website.