26 September 2023 - NT Government Challenges Don Dale Verdict

Was this email forwarded to you?

Sign up for Headnote’s free daily newsletter at Headnote.com.au.

Daily wrap

• Queensland Health investigating death of man who took voluntary assisted dying substance prescribed for his wife

• NT government appeals almost $1 million compensation payout to former Don Dale detainees over unlawful tear gassing

• Woman who allegedly attacked NT chief minister with a crepe charged with aggravated assault

• Defamation laws: Australians forced to navigate different laws across country [paywall can be removed with free registration]

• National HR firm parts ways with director after FWC decision uncovers ‘sham’ employment agreement

• NSW Police gave Scott Johnson's homicide a 'zero' solvability rating, inquiry into gay hate crimes told

• Voice to Parliament is legally safe - Law Council of Australia

Editor’s picks

• High Court Bulletin September 2023

• Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth

  [1992] HCA 45 - Secondary Rules (ANU College of Law podcast with Associate Professors Joshua Neoh and Ryan Goss)

  • “Australia is just weeks away from a referendum, with political communication emerging as a hot topic. But have you ever wondered about the origins of Australia's political advertising laws, particularly given our absence of a Bill of Rights? 📢 📺 📻

    This week on #SecondaryRules, we take a trip back to 1992 and analyse a landmark case: Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth.

    Discover why the High Court of Australia held that the restrictions on political advertising were invalid and, more importantly, how Associate Professor Joshua Neoh would have graded co-host Associate Professor Ryan Goss's undergraduate essay about the case from 20 years ago!”

• Protest bans in NSW and South Australia - are they constitutionally valid? — Australian Public Law

• Australian Securities and Investments Commission v National Australia Bank Limited (No 2) [2023] FCA 1118 (Derrington J)

  • [102] “This suggests that NAB might only be deterred from engaging in similar conduct in the future if a substantial penalty was to be imposed. Regrettably, for the reasons set out above, that is not a possibility in the present case. The maximum penalty of $2.1 million is unlikely to have any real impact on the bank’s future conduct.”

Webinar with Cheryl Saunders, Kenneth Hayne and Megan Davis answering questions on the Voice submitted to the Law Council of Australia

Coffee and a Case Note on Grain Technology Australia Limited v Rosewood Research Pty Ltd (No 5) [2023] NSWSC 1141

Like our free newsletter?

The best way to support us is by telling others about it!

Have some feedback or content for our newsletter? Let us know [email protected]