Daily wrap
“A Melbourne lawyer has been sentenced today (22 September, 2025) to three years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year, for perverting the course of justice and running an offshore scam to help his clients avoid bankruptcy.”
The case of driver Jake Danby has reignited scrutiny of the NT justice system and its shortcomings. But will tougher sentencing laws make a difference?
Cedric and Noelene Jordan have failed in their bid to overturn their 2009 murder conviction, with the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissing their case on all grounds.
From pulp mills to stadiums, Tasmanians are left in the dark about how major decisions are made. A review of the state’s transparency system says that must change.
Like our newsletter?
Chances are, someone you know will too.
Editor’s picks
CATCHWORDS - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for order specifying maximum costs – whether the litigation can be characterised as having “public interest” – where the substantive proceeding concerns whether more than one person can occupy a senate seat within the meaning of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) – where the proceeding has both public and private interest dimensions – where the applicants are likely to discontinue the proceeding in the absence of a maximum costs order to avoid financial risk – where the proceeding has some complexity – where the case is arguable but not strong –application refused
SAD229/2024 - AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v OPTUS MOBILE PTY LIMITED - Justice O'Sullivan will deliver judgment in this matter today at 1:45pm ACST. Livestream available here - Federal Court of Australia - YouTube
How does the recent advisory opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice shape discussions around climate change at the United Nations? And do Pacific island nations – among the most vulnerable to the impacts of global warming – believe Australia is doing enough to combat climate change?
In July, the International Court of Justice delivered its landmark Advisory Opinion on Climate Change. What, though, did the Court actually say? How are states legally obliged to address the urgent existential threat that climate change poses, and what are the consequences for states that fail to meet these obligations? In this episode, LLB V student and Just Cause co-director Eamonn Murphy speaks with Professor Tim Stephens about the implications and influence of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion.
Links to the relevant deepfake videos included in decision - Ariel Mendones et al. v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. et al
“Here, the use of GenAI went beyond the submission of fictitious citations. Plaintiffs submitted at least two exhibits created by GenAI. Further, to an even greater extent than expressed by the Hayes court, the use of deepfakes in a case significantly undermines the Court’s ability to administer justice, significantly erodes the public’s confidence in the judicial system, and significantly burdens under-resourced and overworked courts with the time-consuming task of assessing whether evidence presented to it during pretrial proceedings was a deepfake. As such, a more severe sanction is appropriate.”
We’d love your help shaping Headnote.
Got feedback or ideas? Want to work with us?
Hit reply!