Subscribe to our blog and enjoy observations on life and the law.

Enjoy observations on life and the law

Home » Blog
All
  • All
  • Alex Somers
  • Announcements
  • Brendan Nyst
  • Business
  • Chris Nyst
  • Christmas
  • Civil Liability Law
  • Commercial Law
  • Commissions of Inquiry
  • Compliance Law
  • COVID-19
  • Crime fiction novels
  • Criminal Law
  • Defamation
  • Dispute Resolution
  • DNA Evidence
  • Domestic Violence
  • Employment Law
  • Entertainment
  • Erin Steward
  • Family Law
  • Financial
  • General
  • Health
  • Heidi Le Masurier
  • Hollywood
  • Human Rights
  • International
  • Jonathan Nyst
  • Jordan Roles
  • Litigation
  • Migration
  • Natasha Dawson
  • Navrinder Sathar
  • Nicola Ellis
  • Opinion
  • Pets
  • Politics
  • Privacy
  • Proceeds of Crime
  • Property
  • Social Media
  • Sport
  • Technology
  • Traffic Law
  • Travel
  • Wills and Estates
This week the Queensland opposition launched a robust attack on a centuries-old criminal law defence. The 'mistake of fact’ defence was encoded into Queensland law in 1899 when our Criminal Code was first enacted, adopting a common-law notion dating back at least as far as pre-Norman England, that criminal liability requires some sort of actual subjective culpability, whether based on moral guilt or negligence. Section 24 of our Code provides that a person who does something under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief as to a particular fact, they are not criminally responsible to any greater extent than if that belief was correct.
A common submission by Queensland defence lawyers representing drug-driving offenders goes something like this: “My client had not in fact smoked cannabis for several days prior to driving, but hangover traces of the drug must have remained in his system, unbeknownst to him."
Lawyers have this thing they sometimes like to say. “Hard cases make bad law.” It’s true. About thirty years ago I got the job to represent a nice, sweet, softly-spoken lady who stabbed her husband 87 times with a serrated kitchen knife. Not surprisingly he ended up dead as a doornail.
Between January 2013 and December 2017, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse heard evidence revealing that for generations many of our educational and other institutions presided over the systemic abuse of countless defenceless children. Tragically, most of those children, racked with shame, guilt and self-doubt, kept that abuse hidden from sight in deep, dark and destructive secrecy for decades. Some never whispered a word.
Migration continues to feature as a red hot topic for debate on the Australian political landscape, particularly in the context of the looming Federal election.
They say confession is good for the soul. That may be so, but sometimes it seems there's a whole lot of things it's not nearly so good for. Just ask Liam Neeson.
There is a Japanese proverb that goes along the lines of “We’re fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance” and as history has shown us we love to dance on April Fool’s Day.
A generation ago, corporal punishment at school was commonplace. Canings and strappings that would now turn school mums like me apoplectic were once considered a routine and acceptable means of enforcing discipline and taming the unruly child.
It’s often said one should never discuss politics, sex or religion at a dinner party. The latest news out of the Wonderful World of the Public Service certainly seems to attest to the wisdom of that simple sentiment.
A brand new Netflix documentary doing the rounds right now has sparked a maelstrom of controversy around the ethical and legal culpability of “social media influencers” in advertising and promoting business brands for profit. The disaster-doco “FYRE: The Greatest Party That Never Happened” tells the sorry story of the exploits of Billy McFarland, the mastermind behind the failed 2017 “luxury music festival” FYRE.
The wheels of Justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine. One of the biggest movies of 1967 was Franco Zeffirelli’s rollicking cinematic rom-com treatment of William Shakespeare’s comedy Taming of the Shrew, written and first performed four centuries earlier in the late 1500’s. The 1967 movie of the same name starred Hollywood’s then hottest couple, the Brangelina of their day, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, as the strong-willed couple Katherina and Petruchio, who are pitched together in a head-long battle of the sexes.For those who need to brush up on their Shakespeare, the Shrew plot follows the efforts of embattled dad Baptista Minola to marry off his two daughters, Bianca and Katherina.
The latest news about Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO of Amazon and Forbes Rich List’s wealthiest person in the world, could have a lot of people re-thinking whether a timely prenuptial agreement may just be a very good idea. Bezos, whose net worth is estimated to be, on last count, around $136.7 billion, announced earlier this month that he and his wife, MacKenzie Bezos, are heading for the divorce courts. And guess what – they don't have a pre-nup in place. That means some judge is going to have to work out who gets what, and there's a whole big bunch of lollies on the table.

Be The First To Receive Our Blogs, News and Updates

Contact us and see
how we can help

Whether your matter is civil, criminal or commercial in nature, our team at Nyst Legal has all the experience, expertise and diligence necessary to ensure that you achieve the absolute best available result.