Send us a text message with feedback

For centuries there have been restrictions on suing a judge who has heard your case if you think they got it badly wrong. You could appeal against the decision or, in theory, petition the legislature to remove the judge. But you couldn't normally sue the judge for damages. There were some exceptions to this rule but these have been removed in Australia in a recent case that went all the way to the High Court.

This episode discusses The State of Queensland v Stradford (2025) and the arguments either way for giving judges an immunity from being sued and whether there could be a compromise position, perhaps involving insurance, so that the victims of gross judicial negligence and not left effectively without a remedy.

For more information about your hosts and the Law in Context podcast series visit our website at https://lawincontext.com.au

Send us a text message with feedback

No criminal justice system is perfect. Sometimes it "miscarries" and innocent people are convicted. The consequences can be devastating for those involved, and sometimes for society, leading to unrest or political tensions.

In this episode we look at some selected miscarriages of justice from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. We discuss a very controversial and live issue at the moment, the Lucy Letby convictions in the United Kingdom, involving the deaths of seven babies, which relied on expert evidence which is now being challenged by other experts.

We also look at a new phenomenon; "mass" miscarriages of justice, where governments or government agencies wrongly prosecute people and then go into denial, as happened in the UK's Post Office scandal, and in Australia with the Robodebt scandal.

Some common themes in these terrible events are discussed. At the end of the day, there is no substitute for vigilance and remaining sceptical about everything that is given in evidence.

For more information about your hosts and the Law in Context podcast series visit our website at https://lawincontext.com.au

Send us a text message with feedback

Being the victim of a crime can be highly traumatic. Some argue that the criminal justice system can make the victim re-live that trauma all over again.

In this episode we look at how, historically, victims have moved away from being parties in a criminal case, to mere witnesses. This process of sidelining victim may be a necessary consequence of giving the State a monopoly over legitimate punishment but there may still be ways of making the victim's voice heard.

The Victim Impact Statement is one such device. Perhaps restorative justice procedures also help reintegrate the victim as well as the offender back into the community. Perhaps not.

For more information about your hosts and the Law in Context podcast series visit our website at https://lawincontext.com.au

Send us a text message with feedback

Everyone agrees that Crime and Punishment go together. But that's where the agreement ends. There are multiple aims of punishment: to inflict retribution (an eye for an eye); to deter others; to incapacitate the offender so the public is protected in the meantime; and to rehabilitate the offender so they do not re-offend after the sentence is over.

Juggling with these aims requires the judge to exercise discretion and to weigh up the aims of sentencing against the circumstances of the exact offence.

Sometimes, legislatures try to tie the hands of judges with some kind of mandatory sentence, and the whole area becomes politicised.

In this episode we discuss the aims, forms and difficulties of punishing crimes in today's world.

For more information about your hosts and the Law in Context podcast series visit our website at https://lawincontext.com.au

Send us a text message with feedback

Most people are fascinated by crime, at least if they are at a safe distance from it. It is the stuff of popular culture and serious scholarship. Theories abound. Might a certain amount of it be good for society if it reminds everyone of how they should behave? Or is criminalising certain behaviour a way of oppressive governments maintaining control?

In this episode we discuss how criminal law differs from other branches of law. It is public. It leads to punishment. It has separate procedures and a higher standard of proof.

We take two crimes - murder and theft - and discuss each of their elements, as examples of how the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the actus reus - the guilty act(s) - and the men rea - the guilty mind.

We look at defences, such as insanity, duress, necessity and automatism.

If you read, watch or listen to crime dramas, this episode gives you the foundations of the law that applies to them.

For more information about your hosts and the Law in Context podcast series visit our website at https://lawincontext.com.au

Send us a text message with feedback

Like many countries in the world, Australia is a federation; it has more than one tier of government. In this nail-biting episode, the Two Steves explain how our system came about, with the former colonies being given all legislative powers except to the extent that those powers were given and exercised by the Commonwealth. The territories and local government are further tiers, which seems quite enough for a country of 25 million people.

What can be a baffling year-long unit in a law degree, is explained succinctly by your hosts in 10 minutes! We move from the defence of the realm to the collection of our garbage.

For more information about your hosts and the Law in Context podcast series visit our website at https://lawincontext.com.au

Send us a text message with feedback

All legal systems of previously colonised countries have grappled with the idea of land rights for the original peoples of those countries and the claims of settlers or conquerors. Australia was an unusual case. It wasn't exactly conquered. Nor did the Indigenous peoples cede the land to the English settlers.

The only remaining option under international law at the time was for Australia to have been "discovered". But this meant ignoring the thousands of people who had "discovered" it tens of thousands of years earlier. Australia was declared "terra nullius" - land belonging to no one.

The consequence was that the British Crown acquired sovereignty and any native land rights were extinguished.

The fiction of terra nullius became more and more repugnant and eventually the High Court of Australia found a way through, in the case of Mabo v Queensland (No 2) in 1992. The Crown (now the Australian states) had legal title but Indigenous people who could show continuous occupation might have "beneficial" title, unless it had actually been extinguished.

In this extended episode we hear from Professor Kate Galloway, an expert in land law with long experience of native title matters, about the case of Eddie Mabo, one of the most important cases in Australian legal history.

For more information about your hosts and the Law in Context podcast series visit our website at https://lawincontext.com.au

Send us a text message with feedback

You might think the idea of property is straightforward. In a way, it is. Almost anything tangible and many things intangible are capable of being property, under the common law. Even one of our jokes is capable of being property, assuming we actually made it up.

But "property" to a lawyer is not so much about the item in question, but the rights associated with it.

Is the right exclusive, or is it divided up, for example between the landlord who owns the freehold and a tenant who owns a lease?

Has someone else acquired rights over land by continuous use, through the law of prescription?

Has the apparent owner actually lost their rights if contested by someone who has been in exclusive possession of the land, without force, secrecy or permission, for a long period - so-called "squatters' rights"?

In this episode we try to unbundle what the law bundles up, and we end by noting the cultural context of property law, which is based around individuals and particular kinds of uses. This looks ahead to the next episode, on native title, and the question whether and when the common law is capable of recognising the communal use of property by first nations' peoples.

For more information about your hosts and the Law in Context podcast series visit our website at https://lawincontext.com.au