|
 Friday 8 February
Professor Thomas Lundmark
A native of California, Thomas Lundmark studied in California, Sweden, and Germany, earning degrees from San Diego State University (BA), the University of California, Berkeley (JD), and the University of Bonn, Germany (Dr jur). After years of full-time legal practice, and part-time teaching, in his home town of San Diego, Lundmark returned to academia as a guest professor at the Universities of Bonn and Rostock before being appointed to the chair in Common Law and Comparative Legal Theory at the University of Muenster, Germany, in 1997. His publications include ‘Power & Rights in U.S. Constitutional Law’ (OUP) and ‘The Talking Law Dictionary’, a German-English legal dictionary, which includes a CD with authentic pronunciations provided by prominent judges from the German Federal Constitutional Court, the United States Supreme Court, the House of Lords, and other courts. Professor Lundmark teaches and researches primarily in the fields of legal theory, American constitutional law, and comparative law. He is the only American law professor in Germany, and one of only two from the common law world (The other is an Australian).
Stare Decisis and the German Federal Constitutional Court
About the paper
Do German courts adhere to their own precedents? To answer this question, this seminar takes a close look at the structure, statutory constraints, and decisional practice of the highest court in the land, the German Federal Constitutional Court.
Further information
PowerPoint Presentation available. Please email research@law.uq.edu.au to obtain a copy.
 Friday 15 February
Dr Dominic O'Sullivan
Dominic O’Sullivan is a barrister specialising in commercial law. His practice includes advisory work and advocacy for civil courts and before arbitral tribunals. Dominic practised at Essex Court Chambers in London between 2001 and 2006, where he remains a door tenant. In June 2006, Dominic returned to Australia and since that time has practised at the Bar in Brisbane, Queensland.
Dominic was educated at the University of Queensland, where he graduated with first class honours degrees in English Literature and Law, and at Exeter College, Oxford, where he wrote a doctoral thesis on aspects of the law of rescission.
Aspects of the Law of Rescission
About the paper
This paper offers a comprehensive treatment of the law of rescission in England, with reference to the law of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The paper sets out the grounds permitting rescission, such as fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence, covering the ways that rescission occurs at common law and in equity, in the case of both executory and completed transactions. Consideration is given to the extent to which, and how, the law seeks to restore the status quo. It gives detailed consideration to the four main bars to rescission: restitutio in integrum impossible; the intervention of third party rights; affirmation; and delay.
Further information
Full paper not available.
Friday 22 February
Professor Barry Wright
Barry Wright (B.A. History, University of Toronto; LLB, Osgoode Hall Law School York University; LLM, LSE University of London; PhD, OHLS York University) is Professor of Law and Criminology at Carleton University where he has taught since 1986 (along with visiting appointments at the Institute of Advance Legal Studies, University of London, 1993-1994 and Law, University of Queensland, 2005-2006). He is editor of the Canadian State Trials series, the third volume of which (Political Trials and Security Measures, 1840-1914) is currently under review by the Osgoode Society and the University of Toronto Press. His recent publications include comparative studies of libel prosecutions and the press in New South Wales and Upper Canada in the early 19th century and criminal law codification in self governing British jurisdictions in the late 19th century.
Beyond Convicts and Remittance Men: Comparative Colonial Legal History and the Rule of Law
About the paper
This paper aims to generate interest in the rich potential for comparative legal history within 19th century British jurisdictions, using examples of similar rule of law–related controversies.
The study of imperial networks has been rather unfashionable in recent decades as historians have explored previously neglected local experiences, social and cultural conflict, and have sought to develop specifically national narratives. More recently, however, Christopher Bayley and others have critiqued the loss of perspective in micro-histories and the distorting effects of the progressive teleologies of nationalism. There is enormous potential for more research on legal and political history on a wider scale. This does not imply the displacement of history from “below” by history from “above,” or the uncritical restoration of whiggish imperial narratives. Nor is the title of the paper intended to provoke “culture cringe,” diminish the central place of the convict experience in Australia, or denigrate the role of colonial officialdom. The paper seeks to encourage attention to context and further exploration of common issues in colonial and emerging self-governing British jurisdictions.
Australian/Canadian legal historical studies have tended to focus on obvious matters such as the transportation of political convicts from the 1837-1838 Canadian rebellions to New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land or comparisons of the respective federation debates and resulting constitutions. This is beginning to change with the emergence of comparative scholarship on matters such as property regimes and the study of the intercolonial migration of political and legal personnel (eg. George Arthur, Francis Forbes), which highlight Bruce Kercher’s point that imperial networks were not simply about directives from London but also ideas circulating between colonies. Two examples are explored here. The first compares remarkably parallel controversies involving the press, libel prosecutions and the administration of justice in New South Wales and Upper Canada in the late 1820’s. The second extends my comparative look at the 1892 Canadian and 1899 Queensland Criminal Codes to include the 1893 New Zealand codification.
The early 19th century libel cases illustrate the growing popular engagement with politics and public affairs and tensions with executively-dominated colonial administrations (which in New South Wales was manifested as Exclusive/Emancipist conflicts). Here, we see that the formal claims of the rule of law served as an increasingly effective check on partisan uses of the law designed to fend off challenges and preserve the authority of local elites.
The development of self-government in the late 19th century was accompanied by the modernization of the state and the exercise of authority. Criminal law codification is associated with these transformations. While the first wave of self-governing jurisdiction codifications (Canada, New Zealand, and Queensland) represent a distinct reform trajectory from the imposed imperial codifications (epitomised by Macaulay’s Indian Penal Code) they share a similar broad objective: the reduction of discretionary authority and the better securing of the rule of law in culturally-diverse frontier settings.
The early 19th century example tends to confirm E.P. Thompson’s assertion that the rule of law is an unqualified good, but perhaps some qualification is necessary as we turn to the late 19th century example. While codification was a rule of law advance and a liberal expression of modern authority, a question remains (particularly for indigenous populations in post-colonial settings): on whose terms?
Further information
Full paper not available.
Friday 7 March
PhD Confirmation
Mr Hongsong Song
He is a PhD Candidate at the University of Queensland’s School of Law. He is also an Associate Professor of the Law School of Yantai University in China. Hong-song Song holds a Bachelor of Engineering, Bachelor of Law, and a Master of Law. His main research interest is in the area of intellectual property, particularly in copyright law.
Press Control and Copyright in China 1949-1979
About the paper
This seminar reviews China’s information production and dissemination system from the 1950’s to the 1970’s, in order to understand the legacy left by Mao’s totalitarian rule in China. First, the foremost features of China’s information production and dissemination system during this period, the centralized structure of communication system, is identified and discussed. Relying on its centralized and pervasive organization, the Party extended its control over all formal political and social communication systems, including state organs, mass media, and other social organizations. Excessive centralization made the communication system in Communist China a pure up-down system.
Second, the speaker will discuss some specific measures adopted by the Party to control information production and dissemination processes. Every critical link of the information production and dissemination chain, from literary and artistic creation, to publication, to distribution, and even to the consumption of cultural products, was planned by Party bureaucrats. The domination of bureaucratic planning in information production and dissemination and the elimination of market mechanisms caused an overproduction of political and propaganda materials, whilst creating a serious shortage of entertainment and other forms of cultural products deemed unimportant in Mao’s China.
Third, the seminar will focus on the status of copyright and state rewards for authors under this totalitarian system. Along with the party-state eliminated autonomous authors, publishers, and audiences, and replaced market mechanisms with centralised plans, copyright lost its place and was replaced with fixed state rewards.
Further information
Full paper not available.
Friday 14 March
Professor Laurence Lustgarten
Professor Lustgarten is a Professor of Law at the University of Southampton where he has taught since 1993. He was the Commissioner of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, England and Wales, 2003-07.
His publications include ‘In From the Cold: National Security and Parliamentary Democracy’ [with Ian Leigh]; ‘The Governance of Police; Legal Control of Racial Discrimination’; co-author of ‘Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect’, and author of approximately 50 articles and reviews
Human Rights: Where Do We Go From Here?
About the paper
Information is not available.
Further information
Full paper available. Please email research@law.uq.edu.au to obtain a copy.
 Friday 4 April 
Dr Scott Prasser
Scott is a Senior Lecturer at the University of the Sunshine Coast and currently is a visiting academic at the TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland. Prior to his academic career, Scott worked in senior policy advisory positions in federal and state governments including departments State Development and Premier and Cabinet.
Scott has written extensively on public policy, regional economic development and project management and has edited/co-edited and written 16 books/monographs including Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries in Australia and was a contributor to the 2007 Oxford Companion to Australian Politics. Scott also provides frequent analysis on policy issues in The Courier-Mail, The Australian and The Age, and on ABC radio and television. In 2007, he gave presentations on policy issues to the Productivity Commission, Australian Institute of Criminology, Institute of Public Affairs, Sydney Institute and the National Gamblers’ Regulation Conference.
Scott founded the annual State of the Region Conference and was co-founder of the Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia national conference. During 2006 Scott proposed and developed the Bachelor of Business (Property and Asset Management) degree.
Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries: Their Use and Abuse
About the paper
As in other Westminster democracies like the UK, Canada and New Zealand, royal commissions and public inquires have a long history in Australia both before and since federation. Appointed to advise governments on a range of policy issues, public inquiries, especially royal commissions, have also been established to investigate allegations of corruption, maladministration and the causes of major accidents and natural disasters.
This paper overviews the origins of royal commissions and public inquires and highlights trends in their numbers and types since federation.
The paper also gives attention to:
- the reasons royal commissions and public inquiries are appointed, and their uses and roles in modern government;
- key issues royal commissions and public inquiries have investigated and their impacts; and
- areas where concerns have been expressed about their potential abuse.
Further information
PowerPoint Presentation available. Please email research@law.uq.edu.au to obtain a copy.
Friday 11 April
Dr John Chesterman
John Chesterman is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Political Science, Criminology and Sociology at the University of Melbourne.
Prior to that he worked as a Research Fellow at the School of Indigenous Australian Studies at James Cook University. The result of that research was his most recent book, ‘Civil Rights: How Indigenous Australians Won Formal Equality’ (UQP 2005). He is also co-author of ‘Citizens Without Rights: Aborigines and Australian Citizenship’ (CUP). This seminar will detail the research that he has been conducting with Dr Heather Douglas, which has seen both of them undertake archival research in the Northern Territory and has also involved speaking to former patrol officers, such as current NT Administrator Ted Egan.
Citizens in Name Only: The Naming of Aboriginal People in 1950s Northern Territory
About the paper
The Commonwealth Government of Australia introduced the policy of ‘assimilation’ in the early 1950s. This policy ultimately aimed to merge Aboriginal people with other Australians. In 1953 the Government drafted legislation for the Northern Territory that would cease to discriminate against Aboriginal people on the basis of their race, but would instead discriminate against Aboriginal people whose social status rendered them as ‘wards’. This reclassification process ultimately affected almost every Aboriginal person in the Northern Territory. However, the assimilation policy could not be implemented until a census had been undertaken of all Aboriginal people in the jurisdiction to determine who would be listed as wards. The full implementation of the assimilation policy was delayed as the census took over four years to complete. The Government employed patrol officers whose role included locating, naming and registering all Northern Territory Aboriginal people. This paper discusses the census project and considers its legal implications as well as its implications for relations between Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.
Further information
Full paper not available.
Friday 2 May
Professor Margaret Davies
Margaret Davies is Professor of Law at Flinders University, South Australia. She has been a recipient of two grants from the Australian Research Council, and is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. Her research covers several areas of legal theory, including the philosophy of property, critical legal theory, gender and law, and legal pluralism. Her research is interdisciplinary in nature, and draws on sociology, political theory, history, literature and philosophy. She has strong research ties with researchers in Sweden, and has recently co-edited a collection of essays on Swedish law. Margaret Davies is on the international editorial board of Social and Legal Studies and on the editorial board of the Macquarie Law Journal. Currently, she serves on the International Reference Group for a Swedish Research Council Centre of Excellence at Umeå University, and on the International Advisory Board for the Arts and Humanities Research Board Research Centre for Law, Gender and Sexuality at the University of Kent. Major publications include Asking the Law Question (3rd edition, 2008), Property: Meanings, Histories, Theories (2007), Are Persons Property? (with Ngaire Naffine, 2001), and Delimiting the Law (1996), as well as a number of articles and book chapters.
Scale and Perspective in Legal Theory
About the paper
What does a change of scale (and consequently of perspective) mean for the concept of law? Legal theorists are accustomed to considering law at the level of the legal system. Legal positivism, for instance, sees law essentially as a system of imperatives emanating from a hierarchically superior source. This paper contrasts the top-down, institutional, and statist concept of law with a horizontal subject-to-subject approach. A horizontal entry-point to understanding law replaces the values of superiority and certainty with the values of contiguity, plurality and contingency, that is, of mutable relationships formed with the persons and communities next to and around the legal subject. Such a change of scale and perspective is not proposed as an alternative to more conventional analysis, but rather as a complementary understanding of law from the ground up. This set of ideas is examined both as a theoretical approach to law and as an actual alternative practice of law where the sources, norms, and subjects of law are more or less equalised.
Further information
Full paper not available.
Friday 9 May
Dr David Lindsay
David Lindsay is a Senior Lecturer at Monash Law School, teaching Intellectual Property, Copyright, Law of the Internet, Communications Law and Regulation, and Trusts. David has published and presented widely in the areas of copyright law, privacy law, Internet law and communications (broadcasting and telecommunications) law. He is the author of the reference work International Domain Name Law: ICANN and the UDRP (Hart, Oxford, 2007). David is also a co-author of the legal service, Lahore & Rothnie, Copyright and Designs (Butterworths, Sydney, 1996-), contributing recent chapters on anti-circumvention provisions, performers’ moral rights and new private use exceptions.
‘Sucks’-Type Domain Names and Criticism Sites under the UDRP: A Critical Analysis of Persistent Controversies.
About the paper
The Uniform domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) – a unique, sui generis form of international dispute resolution - is the principal legal mechanism for resolving disputes between trade mark owners and domain name registrants. This paper examines two of the most controversial (and complex) issues in the application of the UDRP, namely, the treatment of ‘sucks’-type domain names and criticism sites. In particular, two issues which continue to divide UDRP panellists - whether a ‘sucks’-type domain names is ‘confusingly similar’ to a trade mark that is included in the domain name and whether a domain name registrant has ‘rights or legitimate interests’ in a criticism site – will be examined in detail. In particular, the paper will, introduce fundamental terminology in this area; identify the proper scope and objectives of the UDRP; review the main UDRP decisions relating to ‘sucks’-type domain names and criticism (or ‘cybergripe’) sites; and explain how these controversial issues should be resolved by reference to the scope and objectives of the UDRP.
Further information
PowerPoint Presentation available. Please email research@law.uq.edu.au to obtain a copy.
Friday 16 May
Professor Nick Gaskell
Professor Nick Gaskell has been “David Jackson Professor of Maritime and Commercial Law” since 1994 at the School of Law of the University of Southampton, UK. From 2003-2007 he was Head of the School of Law. He is a member of the Institute of Maritime Law at the University of Southampton and from 1996-1999 served as Director of that Institute.
Professor Gaskell has taught maritime law at Southampton University since 1978 and has lectured to academics and the maritime profession widely in Southampton, London and internationally (e.g., Australia, Belgium, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, India, Italy, Japan, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Yugoslavia, and the USA).
He lectured law at Monash University, Melbourne, in 1984 and 1986. In the 1980s and 1990s he lectured extensively on maritime law to the Australian maritime and legal professions on courses run jointly with the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand (in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Wellington and Auckland).
Maritime Pollution Liability Conventions
About the paper
Marine pollution compensation systems have developed following a series of disasters over the last 40 years. This seminar will provide an outline introduction to the essentially private law compensation solutions that have been adopted within the framework of public international law. Particular attention will be paid to the Bunker Pollution Convention 2001 and the Wreck Removal Convention 2007.
Further information
Full paper not available.
Friday 30 May
Mr David Russell RFD QC
David Russell was admitted a solicitor in Queensland in 1974, and was called to the Bar in 1977. He is admitted to practise in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and Papua New Guinea. He was first appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1986 and holds that office in all these Australian jurisdictions.
He currently practices in Sydney (Ground Floor Wentworth Chambers) and Brisbane (Sir Harry Gibbs Chambers).
He has acted for Commonwealth and State Governments as well as individuals and corporations.
He was President of the Taxation Institute of Australia from 1993 to 1995, and of the Asia Oceania Tax Consultants’ Association from 1996 to 2000. He has been appointed an Honorary Adviser of the Asia Oceania Tax Consultants’ Association for life. David served as Chairman of the National Education (1991-3) and International Relations (1995-2001) Committees of the Institute, and is a member of its National Technical Committee and the Law Council of Australia Business Law Section Taxation Committee. He served as a member of the Ministerial Consultative Committee for the Tax Law Improvement Project from 1994 to 1997 and as a member of the Steering Committee for the National Review of Standards for the Tax Profession in 1993 and 1994. From 1991 to 1995 he was a member of the National Tax Liaison Group.
David has lectured and written extensively on taxation related topics in Australia and overseas.
Tax and Climate Change - New Horizons for Tax Practitioners
About the paper
In recent years, the widely acknowledged concern expressed not only at official levels but in the mass media in forms ranging from opinion pieces through films such as Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” to popular literature that anthropogenically generated phenomena (and in particular greenhouse gases (“GHG”) are responsible for potentially detrimental changes in the world’s climate have led to increasing support for the view that existing public policy instruments are inadequate to address the issue. This seminar will consider differing taxation measures which have been implemented throughout the world, as well as recent Australian developments, directed at or influenced by climate change concerns. In particular, the seminar will examine how taxes will play a major part in the new carbon emissions regime, the major issues in interaction with existing laws and opportunities for tax professionals.
Further information
Full paper available. Please email research@law.uq.edu.au to obtain a copy.
Friday 13 June
Justice E.W. Thomas
Justice E.W. Thomas was a Judge of the High Court in Auckland for five years and a Judge of the Court of Appeal for six years before being appointed in 1997 as one of Her Majesty's Privy Councillors. Currently he is an Acting Judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court.
Prior to his appointment to the bench he had a stellar career in practice, which included an impressive resume of service to the profession and broader public, as well as honours for his performance in the legal profession. In 2002 he was made Distinguished Companion of The New Zealand Order of Merit.
In addition, throughout his career as a lawyer and judge he has published prolifically on an extraordinary range of legal issues. Thus, he has published articles or produced papers on issues in town planning, corporate law, administrative law, constitutional law, torts, and criminal law, to name only some of the areas he has traversed. Following his retirement from the Court of Appeal, Justice E.W. Thomas attended the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University in Canberra. While there he wrote a book entitled: The Judicial Process: Realism, Pragmatism, Practical Reasoning and Principles, published by Cambridge University.
An Unheralded Theory of Justice
About the paper
This seminar poses the theory of justice is an extension of the concept of corrective justice. In returning the parties to the position they were in before the impeached transaction it seeks to ameliorate the harsh extremes of individual liberalism and, in particular, the economic order, capitalism. The underlying precept of the common law, including equity, is the law’s ultimate abhorrence of exploitation: no person may exploit another in the sense of taking or obtaining an unfair advantage at the other’s expense. The law serves to protect the weak and vulnerable from the machinations and unfair domination of the strong and powerful. It takes a stand when a person seeks to take advantage of another in a manner or to an extent where it can fairly be said that he or she is abusing the freedom which individual liberalism confers on them. The deep and extended prevalence of this "precept of non-exploitation" is evident in all branches of the law and, it is argued, its implementation becomes an integral and intrinsic part of the judicial function.
Further information
Full paper not available.
Friday 4 July
Associate Professor Christian A Witting
Christian Witting is an Associate Professor at the Melbourne Law School and a Fellow of the European Centre for Tort and Insurance Law. For a decade his primary area of research was the law of torts, with respect to which his chief publication is Liability for Negligent Misstatements (OUP, 2004). His current research concerns corporate groups.
Liability for Corporate Wrongs
About the paper
This seminar will outline the issues that arise when an injuring company within a group is unable to meet its tort liabilities. It will survey current thinking on the limited liability doctrine with respect to both corporate parents and natural person shareholders. It will then argue that courts determining the extent (if any) of shareholder liability need to take account of a number of fundamental tort law propositions that all too often are neglected.
Further information
Full paper not available.
Friday 25 July
PhD Confirmation
Captain Norman J Lopez
Norman Lopez is a PhD candidate at The University of Queensland’s, TC Beirne School of Law. He has 44 years experience in the maritime industry including as a sea-going Captain, and spent nine years in Hong Kong as an academic. He has authored one reference book and co-authored two others, and written numerous journal articles. He is a maritime arbitrator, shipbroker and P&I Correspondent. He holds four Australian university degrees and owns a business providing varied services to maritime transport including maritime training.
From “Hague Rules” to “New York Rules” – a Phoenix from the ashes?
About the paper
Since the 19th century, the allocation of risks when goods are carried by sea has ranged from strict liability to freedom of contract to mandatory rules governing contractual terms. Presently there are four mandatory regimes (one alleged to be “dated” and not “uniform”; and one nominally in force and about 30 years old but not applied by major players in carriage of goods) and also numerous domestic laws. Confusion prevails. Yet another mandatory regime is being proposed by UNCITRAL, one that is complex and covering areas of transport outside liability issues. Carriers and cargo interests and their insurers and banks may not be ready for such a complex, perhaps political solution to the prevailing confusion. This seminar will propose at least two possible solutions.
Further information
Full paper not available.
Friday 8 August
PhD Confirmation
Mr James Farmer
James Farmer joined the Public Defender’s Office in September 1979 as a para-legal, shortly after he began part-time studies in law. He was admitted as a Barrister of the Supreme Court of Queensland in June, 1987. After the Public Defender’s Office was amalgamated with the Legal Aid Office in 1990, he was appointed as a trial counsel. James has appeared in criminal trials and sentences in both the District and Supreme Courts, appeals and in the Mental Health Court. One of his first cases in 1990 was as junior counsel in Re: Wigginton ,(the so-called “Vampire Killer”), a reference in the Mental Health Tribunal. The accused was diagnosed with Multiple Personality Disorder. He holds the degrees of Bachelor Of Arts, Diploma of Teaching and Bachelor of Laws. He is presently undertaking post-graduate studies at the University of Queensland.
Dissociative Identity Disorder and the M'Naghten Rules: A Case of Square Peg and a Round Hole?
About the paper
Although Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is the most serious of the dissociative disorders, the law is suspicious when it is the basis for a defence of Unsoundness of Mind. This scepticism may arise from the jurisprudential paradigm - “one person, one body” or “one integrated psychic entity, one body”-on which the M’Naghten Rules rest. The criminal law recognizes automatism, but it does not countenance a defence if the defendant was in an altered state of consciousness called a dissociative identity state. The Rules stipulate that the defendant must be deprived of any one of the volitional, cognitive or moral capacities, but this may not apply to a person whose sense of self is so fundamentally disrupted by dissociative symptoms that he was, at the relevant time, in an identity state which had little or no access to the whole of his memories, beliefs, morals and guiding principles. The Rules may need to be modified to recognize these unique characteristics.
Further information
Full paper available. Please email research@law.uq.edu.au to obtain a copy.
Friday 5 September
Associate Professor Mal Parker
Mal Parker is an Associate Professor of Medical Ethics at the School of Medicine, University of Queensland, and teaches ethics, law & professional issues in the MBBS program. He has qualifications in medicine, philosophy and health law, and has been in general practice for thirty years. He is the president and foundation member of the Australasian Bioethics Association (Australia), and is a board member of the Australian and New Zealand Institute of Health Law & Ethics and Postgraduate Medical Council of Queensland. He chairs UQ's Human Experimentation Ethical Review Committee, and is a member of the Queensland Health Ethics Advisory Committee and the Australian Medical Association Queensland Ethics Committee. He has published nationally and internationally in philosophy of medicine, bioethics, medical ethics, health law, and medical education. Current research interests include medical professionalism, end-of-life decisions, philosophy of psychiatry, principlism and fundamentalism, evidence-based medicine and regulation of complementary medicine. He practices as a General Practitioner part-time.
Assessing Professionalism in Medical Students: Preparation for Self-regulation
About the paper
Since 1999, the University of Queensland School of Medicine has provided a Personal & Professional Development process (PPD) which offers students support across a range of concerns which may be flagged by tutors, clinicians, or on occasions other students. Students are interviewed to clarify issues, offer support and feedback, and negotiate responses. Serious cases and established patterns of inadequate professional behaviour, are referred to the Board of Examiners. A number of students have been failed on the basis of consensus concerning inadequate professionalism. This is an academic sanction, but the process serves to introduce students to the self-regulation functions of the Medical Board, with its investigative and support functions, together with the final disciplinary processes of the Health Practitioners’ Tribunal, where disciplinary sanctions are decided.
Further information
Full paper will be published in the Academic Medicine Journal in August 2008.
Friday 19 September
Associate Professor Mark Lunney
Mark Lunney is an Associate Professor at the School of Law, The University of New England. He graduated from The University of Queensland in 1987 with LLB (Hons), before moving to the UK to undertake postgraduate research. He previously taught at the School of Law, King‘s College London. He is co-author of Tort Law: Text & Materials (3rd ed, 2008) (with KA Oliphant), The Law of Torts in Australia (4th ed, 2007) (with Francis Trindade and Peter Cane) and is a contributor to Butterworths Common Law Series The Law of Tort (2nd ed, 2007). His work has been cited by the High Court of Australia, the New South Wales Court of Appeal, and the Law Commission of England and Wales. Mark has written extensively in Torts, the History of Common Law English and the Legal Profession, and the relationship between private law and human rights.
Title to be advised
About the paper
Details about the paper will be provided shortly.
Further information
Full paper not available.
Friday 3 October
Mr Kris Glendhill
Kris Glendhill practiced in London in the areas of criminal appeals and public law claims for detainees in prison and psychiatric hospitals: these were key areas for the development of the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Act 1998 and allowed him to appear in several leading cases in the English Court of Appeal and House of Lords. In 2006, he relocated to New Zealand, initially to commence a PhD in the impact of human rights instruments on mental health law whilst maintaining a part-time practice in England. In 2007, he joined the faculty at the University of Auckland, where he teaches crime, torts and international human rights law.
The UK's Human Rights Act 1998: Ten Years On
About the paper
This seminar will address the tools given to the UK judiciary by the Human Rights Act 1998, compare them with the tools given to the New Zealand judiciary in the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and those subsequently allowed the ACT and Victorian judiciary. The breadth of the interpretations adopted by the UK judiciary in some of the leading cases will be highlighted, and the legitimacy of this analysed. Divergences between the approach of the UK judiciary and those in New Zealand will be noted.
Further information
Full paper not available.
Friday 17 October
Dr Peter Billings and Dr Tamara Walsh
Peter Billings is a Senior Lecturer at The University of Queensland's TC Beirne School of Law where he teaches in Adminstrative Law. Previously he worked at the University of Southampton and the University of the West of England, Bristol. He has taught Public Law and Civil Liberties at undergraduate and graduate level, and Refugee Law and Research Methods at postgraduate level. His research interests are in Public Law (particularly administrative justice) and the law relating to refugees, subjects on which he has authored several journal articles. He is currently writing a monograph on comparative asylum law and policy and contributing a chapter on refugee status determination procedures to a collection of essays on Gender and the Law.
Tamara Walsh is a Senior Lecturer at The University of Queensland's TC Beirne School of Law. Tamara's research interest lies in the impact of the law on people in poverty. Her research to date has included examinations of vagrancy law, social security law, corrections law, citizenship and human rights law.
Title to be advised
About the paper
This seminar will detail a joint project between the speakers on indigenous rights and human rights. Details about the paper will be provided shortly.
Full paper not available.
Friday 24 October
Associate Professor Gary Edmond
Gary Edmond is an Associate Professor at UNSW's Faculty of Law. He has published on law and science, expert evidence, and the public understanding of science in journals dedicated to law, sociology, and science studies. Although his research interests are primarily focused on the evidentiary and procedural dimensions of mass torts and miscarriages of justice, his recent research has involved a critical reassessment of literature on the public understanding of law, anthropological and historical evidence in native title claims and comparisons between legal, sociological, and ethnomethodological approaches to the cross-examination of experts. He is a member of the Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society, the Australasian Association for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science and the Society for the Social Study of Science (US).
Title to be advised
About the paper
Details about the paper will be provided shortly.
Full paper not available.
Friday 31 October
Professor Mark Henaghan
Professor Mark Henaghan is the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Otago, New Zealand. His research interests are in the areas of Family Law, Law Relating to Children (custody/access, child abuse, medico-legal issues) Human Genome Law, Relationship Property, The Judiciary and judge-made Law.
What's Fair in Love and War?: Dividing Relationship Property
About the paper
Details about the paper will be provided shortly.
Full paper not available.
Friday 14 November
Associate Professor Simone Degeling
Simone Degeling is an Associate Professor and Co-Director of the Private Law Research & Policy Group. Her research interests lie in Law of unjust enrichment/restitution, Commercial law, Equity and trusts, Banking law and Private law theory. She is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Equity.
The High Court decision in Cook v Lumbers
About the paper
Details about the paper will be provided shortly.
Full paper not available.
Friday 5 December
PhD Confirmation
Ms Mazlifah Mansoor
Mazifah Mansoor is a PhD candidate at The University of Queensland’s, TC Beirne School of Law.
Title to be advised
About the paper
Details about the paper will be provided shortly.
Full paper not available.
|