Introducing CASE IN POINT, a new podcast from the hosts of JUST CASES: Melissa Castan (Professor of Law at Monash University) and James Pattison (the guy who's not a Professor of Law at Monash University).

CASE IN POINT tells the stories behind some of the most amazing court cases you need to know about. 

Grave robbers, AI law enforcement, international diplomatic beefs! Aaaaah!

Each episode a special guest picks a weird and wonderful court case with an epic backstory.

Follow / subscribe to CASE IN POINT in your favourite podcast app:

• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts
• Amazon Music
• iHeart
• Player.FM
• PocketCasts
• RSS

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Outrage over a federal government decision to put religious chaplains in government schools made headlines at the time for being a fight over the separation of church and state. But the real High Court case was about much more - and it has the potential to upend the way the entire federal government functions.

Court cases: 
- Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23 (20 June 2012) http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/23.html
 
- Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] HCA 23 (19 June 2014) http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/23.html

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

1968 seems a lifetime ago. It was a defining year of the 20th century. 1968 is also the year that a Japanese professional boxer was sentenced to death for murder. Remarkably, he remains on death row to this day. The case of Iwao Hakamada has exposed questionable police practices, a forced confession and a bombshell claim from one of the judges who sentenced him.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A newly-elected Australian government is concerned about a growing Communist influence in Australia. The scene is set for a major High Court case. 

Court case: 
Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth ("Communist Party case") [1951] HCA 5; (1951) 83 CLR 1 (9 March 1951)

Read judgment: 
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1951/5.html

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What is the rule of law?  What is executive power? How do we hold power to account? Are our legal institutions and protections still relevant these days? 

The pandemic has upended a lot of things we take for granted. Is it time we rethink how our society organises itself?

We’re bringing you some of the best court cases that have shaped society - and that could provide a way forward for the future.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How does Australian law protect the beliefs and religious practices of witches, conjurers and fortune-tellers? A High Court case from the 1930s could provide the answers. 

There’s a big debate about religious freedom in Australia after the federal government announced plans to introduce new federal religious discrimination laws. Most of the coverage of the religious freedom debate focuses on protecting the major religions, most notably Christianity.  

But there’s some religious groups that don’t get any coverage at all. What if you’re a witch or a Wiccan? A Druid or Shaman? How does Australian law protect your beliefs and religious practices? How has the law treated you over the years if you’re a conjurer or a psychic? 

Today JUST CASES rewinds to a 1930 case which went all the way to the High Court of Australia. 

Music- Lee Rosevere 'Last Call'- Lee Rosevere 'Introducing the Pre-Roll'

Court case- Hansen v Archdall and Smith [1930] HCA 16 44 CLR 265
http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showbyHandle/1/13142

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“There’s a saying in law that hard cases make bad law,” says Dr Colin Campbell. “Judges will sometimes do what they think is right in a particular case, but in doing that they will muck up the law." 

Numerous inquiries have uncovered widespread discrimination and exclusion against children at government schools around Australia. While state-run education departments are tasked with the responsibility of fixing this problem, there’s another institution in our society that has a major role to play: our courts. 

But the leading court case that dictates how the courts play this role - and which judges around Australia are obliged to follow - is seriously flawed.

SHOW NOTES

All music by Lee Rosevere
- 'Introducing the Pre-roll'
- '17 - Awkward Silences version b' 
http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/

Storyteller
 - Dr Colin Campbell, Faculty of Law, Monash University

Hosts
 - Dr Melissa Castan & James Pattison

Further reading
- Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) [2003] HCA 62: http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2003/HCA/62- 

'Improving Educational Outcomes for Children with Disability in Victoria: Final Report' (June 2018), E Jenkin, C Spivakovsky, S Joseph, M Smith, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University: https://www.justcasespodcast.com/s/Castan-Centre-Improving-Educational-Outcomes-for-Students-with-Disability.pdf

Victorian students with disabilities turned away from schools, report finds (ABC News, 29 June 2018): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-29/students-with-disabilities-victorian-government-schools-report/9923274

- Campbell, Colin D, "A Hard Case Making Bad Law: Purvis v New South Wales and the Role of the Comparator Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)" [2007] FedLawRw 4; (2007) 35(1) Federal Law Review 111: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/2007/4.html

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the most-downloaded episode of JUST CASES and one of the most controversial. June 1996. Late at night, two young men cross paths on a Sydney street. When the sun rises the following morning, one of them will be found dead. 

The events of that evening are murky, but the resulting court case sent shockwaves through the community - and we still feel its effects today. 

Melissa & James: "While we're working on a brand new episode for you, we want to share one from the JUST CASES back-catalogue. This is one of the first JUST CASES episodes we recorded, and it's one of our favourites. 

A hot tip: after you've listened, check out the follow-up episode which also features Dr Kate Seear: 'How Can Safe Injecting Rooms Be Legal?'  https://www.justcasespodcast.com/episode/bonus-episode-how-can-safe-injecting-rooms-be-legal."

Twitter.com/Kate_Seear

Check out Kate's awesome ABC podcast, The Outer Sanctum: www.outersanctum.com.au

Music in this episode by Audiobinger:
- 'Made Men'- 'You Cant Love Me'

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Earlier this year the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced it had shut down a long-running investigation into corruption at Rolls-Royce. What did the UK authorities have to trade in exchange for Rolls-Royce’s money and cooperation? 

Between 1999 to 2013, the SFO and a joint BBC/The Guardian investigation revealed that Rolls-Royce - which manufactures aircraft engines and defence systems, as well as their famed luxury cars - engaged in systemic criminal activity on a global scale. 

In 2017, Rolls-Royce came to an agreement with the SFO, in which the company agreed to pay £671 million in return for avoiding prosecution on bribery and corruption charges. 

This type of agreement - referred to as a deferred prosecution agreement (or DPA) - is gaining popularity. 

What exactly are DPAs? Do they pull the teeth out of the criminal justice system, which already struggles to convict people for white collar crime?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The name Rolls-Royce is synonymous with luxury. But in recent years, whistleblowers have revealed the prestige brand has been exporting corruption worldwide. How does the criminal justice system respond? (RELEASE DATE: Wednesday 24 July 2019)LEARN MORE www.justcasespodcast.com/episode/episode-15-rolls-royces-worldwide-network-of-corruptionMUSICLee Rosevere - 'Snakes'

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How does the law balance the rights of women to access safe and legal abortions with the right to free speech and protest? 

For over twenty years anti-abortion protesters have picketed abortion clinics around Australia. To combat this targeted harassment of women seeking safe and legal abortions, state governments have passed ‘safe access zone’ laws which create an exclusion zone around abortion clinics which protestors cannot enter. 

Anti-abortionists argue these laws limit their free speech. Supporters of safe access zones argue these laws are vital to ensure the safety of women seeking health care. 

When this law was challenged by anti-abortion protesters who had breached the exclusion zones, the High Court was faced with a major balancing act.

 Storytellers
- Dr Tania Penovic, Faculty of Law, Monash University
- Dr Caroline Henckels, Faculty of Law, Monash University

Hosts
- Dr Melissa Castan & James Pattison

Further reading

- Explainer: what are abortion clinic safe-access zones and where do they exist in Australia? (https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-abortion-clinic-safe-access-zones-and-where-do-they-exist-in-australia-98175)

- High Court delivers landmark ruling validating abortion clinic ‘safe access zones’ (https://theconversation.com/high-court-delivers-landmark-ruling-validating-abortion-clinic-safe-access-zones-115062)

Music in this episode:
- Lee Rosevere - ‘Start the Day’
- Lee Rosevere - ‘Waiting For the Moment That Never Comes’

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.