McBride told to expect custodial sentence

The bill can be found here. In particular see amendments by the Greens here.

a copy of Jackman J’s judgment can be found here - Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Web3 Ventures Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 64

Deripaska’s case was run by former federal Attorney General Christian Porter. A copy of Kennet J’s judgment can be found here - Deripaska v Minister for Foreign Affairs [2024] FCA 62

Porter practises from Geoffrey Miller Chambers in WA.

a copy of the judgment can be found here - R v TD [2023] QChC 5

See [589] - [590] of the decision at first instance for discussion of this term - Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) [2023] FCA 555

Open court sessions of the appeal will be live streamed here - Federal Court of Australia - YouTube

Best Use of Artificial Intelligence, Law Firm: DLA Piper | Legaltech News [paywall]

“In March 2023, DLA Piper significantly expanded its Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics practice, and now has 14 data scientists and more than 100 lawyers, policy experts, and technologists globally who advise on AI adoption, testing clients’ AI for bias and compliance, create AI legal and compliance tech for clients, and more.”

Harrison CJ at CL [39] “Notwithstanding the authoritative and binding terms of Kentwell, there remains in cases such as this an unfortunate practical constraint upon an appellate court when proceeding to resentence. In the ordinary course of events, a sentencing judge will have had the opportunity to see and observe the appellant in this Court during either or both of the trial or the proceedings upon sentence. Expressions of remorse and statements of contrition, or the assessment of evidence given by an appellant in the Court below, if any, will necessarily form a significant part of the sentencing judge’s available resources. In the way of things, those advantages are not able to be utilised in the same manner on an appeal to this Court. Somewhat artificially, this Court is instead asked to rely upon or accept or adopt the findings made by the sentencing judge in the Court below, or not as the case may be. Even in cases, such as the present, where there is little or no dispute about those findings, the hope that a truly independent resentencing discretion is being exercised remains slightly illusory if there is no alternative to that course being followed.”

“Examining oral argument in the Australian High Court and comparing to the U.S. Supreme Court, this article shows that institutional design drives judicial interruptive behavior. Many of the same individual- and case-level factors predict oral argument behavior. Notably, despite orthodoxy of the High Court as “apolitical,” ideology strongly predicts interruptions, just as in the United States. Yet, important divergent institutional design features between the two apex courts translate into meaningful behavioral differences, with the greater power of the Chief Justice resulting in differences in interruptions. Finally, gender effects are lower and only identifiable with new methodological techniques we develop and apply.”