Tag: lawyer

On 11 November 1918, at the French town of Compiegne, high-ranking officers of the Entente, the coalition that opposed the Central Powers of Germany, Austro-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria during World War 1, signed an armistice with Germany, ceasing all hostilities on the Western Front. At eleven o’clock on that morning - the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month - the guns finally fell silent, after four long years of unprecedented slaughter. The first global war had left an estimated 40 million casualties, including over 200,000 young Australians killed or wounded in action. It became known as “The War to End All Wars.” Unfortunately, it wasn’t.
They say youth is wasted on the young. But it may not always be so. Around one hundred years ago, a young, little-known American writer by the name of Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald, who later would be posthumously celebrated under the name F. Scott Fitzgerald as one of the greatest American authors of the twentieth century, submitted to Collier’s Magazine an odd little story entitled “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” It recounted the strange tale of a baby born in Baltimore in 1860, with all the wizened appearance of a seventy-year-old. Real-life stories of rare medical conditions that caused babies to be born looking like septuagenarians were not unknown even then, but Fitzgerald gave that profoundly sad truth a whimsical tweak.
Those more cynical than I have been sometimes known to quip that "Justice favours the well-heeled". It is undoubtedly true. Whilst money may not buy happiness, it can certainly deliver lots of lawyering, and in the cutthroat world of commercial litigation, he with the deepest pockets is often very likely to be at a distinct advantage. Of course, in the modern world, that's true of any competitive environment, from sport to industry to military conflict. The bigger the bucks, the bigger the bang.
It has long been accepted that the element of certainty is essential to the rule of law. Long-standing legal principle dictates that the law should be certain and accessible, so it can be easily enforced and people can know where they stand. But in an ever more complicated world, that task is becoming increasingly complex.
Unfortunately, sooner or later we all have to turn our minds to the prospect of shuffling off this mortal coil. For most of us, when we do the exercise inevitably entails a lot of care and consternation, stipulating just who should get what in the all-important terms of our final will and testament. But in the process what is often overlooked is one of the most vital questions of all – who should be appointed as executor of the estate?
Somebody please tell me - when are the politicians going to learn? Justice just isn't a one-size-fits-all proposition. When the Victorian government announced last week plans to introduce a mandatory minimum jail term of six months for anyone convicted of assaulting police or paramedics, lawyers predictably warned the move would almost inevitably lead to injustices. Victorian Bar President Mr Matt Collins QC and the Law Institute of Victoria questioned why one would want to appoint the best legal minds available as judges, then deny them any discretion to sentence according to the unique circumstances of each individual case. But such concerns were quickly rejected by politicians keen to promote their "get tough on crime" credentials.
As the bartender gave me the nod for last drinks, I reached for my mobile. It was well and truly time to call it a night, and I was in no state to drive. So I pulled up Uber on my phone and scanned for the nearest driver. The first one that bounced up showed a rating of 4 out of 5 stars.
On the weekend our parks were full of Australia Day revellers. Most, I expect, were celebrating their deep affection and appreciation of their nation of birth or adoption, the great natural gifts of a lucky country and its lucky people, the pride and the delight of being part of an essentially liberal, inclusive, and egalitarian community of mateship and ‘fair dinkum’ Aussie values. I suspect few, if any, were there to remember and rejoice in the misery of the boatloads of wretched convicts who were transported in irons from their homeland to be cast upon the desolate shores of distant antipodes.
By all accounts the recently deceased was a pretty cranky old dude. Even his life-long best friend, my client, the sole beneficiary and executor of the old guy’s last will and testament, had to acknowledge that fact. But then, even by his own admission, they both were. They were cut from the same cloth, no-nonsense old-school Aussie battlers, raised on Struggle Street. Hard men of a by-gone era with little time for tears or new age sensibilities, who had grown into lonely, curmudgeonly old codgers. But they were two grumpy old men who happily endured each other’s inhospitable habits. So it’s probably unsurprising that, years earlier, when the old guy’s family had finally had enough of his gruff, uncompromising ways, he was left only with his old mate from the old days for solace and support. It was a two-way street. Neither had made much time for friendships or relationships; they were too busy just getting on with life.
In a time of increasingly vigorous criticism of some of our court processes, many were taken aback when Victoria’s Supreme Court recently hit back at its detractors, carpeting three politicians, a journalist and a newspaper editor, over public statements criticising the sentencing of terror offenders. A couple of months ago three ministers of the Turnbull government, – Greg Hunt, Alan Tudge and Michael Sukkar – publicly slammed Victorian judges for what they characterised as inappropriate leniency and “ideological experiments” in sentencing terrorists, Mr Sukkar asserting the judges’ approach “has eroded any trust that remained in our legal system.”
The thrill of the punt is not for everyone. It can be a tough game. To the victor goes the spoils, but to the rest only heartache. Litigation, like any gamble, needs a strong heart and deep pockets, and should always be proceeded by a careful cost/benefit calculation. Because not even the house, with all the odds stacked firmly in its favour, will always come up trumps.
The threat last week by One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts to report Fairfax Media journalists to police for stalking, raises some interesting questions. Last Thursday the Senator’s senior media adviser, Sean Black, threatened to complain to police about what he called "continued pestering" and "harassment". His claims followed allegedly persistent emails from journalists seeking answers from Senator Roberts about renunciation of his UK citizenship, in the context of the broader dual nationality debate. Mr Black reportedly told Fairfax Media to "stop the harassment" and warned that further “pestering or harassment” would be referred to the Queensland Police Service for prosecution.