Judicial Review, Volume 10, Issue 2, March 2011

• NCJ Number: 234355
• Journal: Judicial Review Volume: 10 Issue: 2 Dated: March 2011 Pages: 1-258
• Author(s): B. Leveson; I. Binnie; S. Rares; K. Mason; M. Schmidt; R. Sackville; S. Hale
• Date Published: March 2011
• Length: 258 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: Australia

Annotation

This issue contains articles on the admissibility and use of expert evidence, environmental ethics, sentencing corporate offenders, the continuing debate about access to justice, and the complexities of the court interpreting process.

Abstract

A judge on the Supreme Court of Canada addresses the vulnerability of the legal system to unreliable expert evidence, providing some persuasive examples. A judge on the Federal Court of Australia then considers concurrent expert evidence, arguing that the use of concurrent evidence techniques will generally narrow the field of dispute between parties, and it offers the potential for a more satisfactory experience for those involved. Another paper identifies how environmental awareness has moved to the forefront of political and social debate in Australia, and it examines the interplay between law and ethics, with attention to issues related to environmental ethics. A revised version of a paper presented to the 2010 Sentencing Conference in Australia examines the principles that apply to the sentencing of corporate offenders and the challenges judicial officers face in applying those principles. An overview is presented of recommendations offered by various law reform bodies in Australia; the paper argues for further law reform in this area. Another paper is critical of the fragmented approach to access to justice and calls for the long-term funding of a research and policy institute devoted to the integrated study of the disparate elements of "access to justice." The final paper discusses the complexities of the court interpreting process in Australia. It identifies key competencies for court interpreters and contends that the responsibility for the quality of court interpreting must lie with all participants in the process. Systemic improvements are urged, and the pressing need for preservice specialized court interpreter training is noted. Notes accompany each paper.