Passing Judgement

This week has been a little more exciting than previous weeks. I had a great time at trivia and I matched wits with some judges from around the country. One of those judges happened to appear before the High Court in some very important decisions. I also learned of an important difference between Australian and Canadian law.

On Sunday, there was a hall-wide trivia contest with each floor sending representatives. The top prize was $100.00 towards the winning floor's budget. I ended up representing my floor as everyone else left me out to dry like the proverbial towel that I am. I was not alone as two ladies, one from a different floor and the other from the Rex Hotel across the street, joined with me. The Rex Hotel serves as overflow accommodation for students who have been accepted into residence but there is no place to put them. It ended up being the 3 of us against many more much larger teams. Somehow, through knowledge and luck, we managed to pull off a victory! It was agreed that since I had started the game alone (they came a few minutes in) and we were all, effectively, representing floor South Six, the $100.00 prize would go entirely to my floor. Needless to say, I was pretty proud of myself for the next few days.

On Wednesday, I had a marvelous opportunity to interact with judges from across Australia. They were at ANU as part of a National Judicial College of Australia conference. There were only about 20 of them altogether, and a few law students thrown in for good measure. At one point, while discussing a fictional manslaughter case, the host (also a judge) pointed at me to give the first opinion as to the proper sentence. I was a little stunned as I realized that all ears, at than moment, were turned to me. I mentioned that this was only my first semester of my first year at law school and I hadn't done any sentencing courses (which I don't believe are taught). The judge smiled and said that that fact made me more qualified than most judges and I was half-way to the High Court. Everyone had a chuckle and I gave my opinion. After everyone had gone through their's, I noted that my sentence fell somewhere in the middle. I hope to one day do this for real, hopefully at the highest appellate levels.

One of the judges, from Queensland, I learned had been counsel for the state government on several important cases before the High Court. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, aboriginal land claims came to a head in 3 famous cases: Mabo 1, Mabo 2 and Wik. Mabo 1 decided that a particular Queensland law purporting to extinguish native land title rights was contrary to the Commonwealth's anti-racial discrimination legislation, making it unconstitutional. Mabo 2 further ruled that the legal principle which had given the Crown supposed sovereignty over all Australia, terra nullius, was a factual error. Terra nullius held that any lands not already settled at the time of colonization were wastelands open to all. Since aboriginal peoples had no concept of exclusive ownership, it was held, for a long time, that Australia was an empty land, legally speaking. Mabo 2 made it clear that terra nullius was patently false and the the common law recognizes the communal ownership concepts of the aboriginals. The Wik decision held that pastoral leases did not extinguish native title. I was very interested to hear what this judge had to say about those cases and I think my conversations with him gave me a unique insight into those famous cases.

That same night, I went upon invitation to the Solomkos, a Ukrainian family in the area. They had invited me to watch State of Origin with them, the sort of Superbowl of Rugby League. In this case New South Wales and Queensland square off in a best-of-three series held over six weeks; this was the first game. While there I met an interesting man named Wally, from Perth, a Scottish-Australian who's a bit of a Ukrainophile. He works for Air Services Australia (sort of like Navcan) but he used to be a pilot and a crash investigator. I always enjoy going to the Solomkos as they are some of the friendliest and most hospitable people I've ever met.

Finally, in criminal procedure we've begun to learn about property offences, most notably theft. I was intrigued to learn that in Australia, to constitute theft, a personal must intend to permanently deprive the owner of that thing. I understand that this is the law in the UK as well. I looked through the Criminal Code of Canada and found that theft under s 322 clearly states that the intent necessary is merely to deprive be it temporarily or permanently (absolutely is the statutory language used). This would make certain things theft in Canada, but not in Australia. The differences between the systems never stop to amaze me.

All in all, I think this has been a very good and educational week.