ANDREW MICHAELSON
Volume 2, Issue 6 (Originally Published 27 August 2012) With the first half of its second season finishing up last Friday, perhaps we’re finally ready to make a proper assessment of that sassy yet scintillating, corny but compelling enigma of a show that is Suits. To the uninitiated, Suits, is a US legal drama1 currently airing on Channel 7[2] It follows the exploits of one Harvey Spectre, ace corporate attorney3, his trusty associate Mike Ross and their compatriots at the law firm Pearson Hardman. From the outset, Suits quite understandably sounds like every other courtroom drama available for our viewing pleasure, Boston Legal, Street Legal, Fairly Legal etc. The cast doesn’t feature anyone particularly notable4, the format isn’t anything groundbreaking and we’re not talking Mad Men quality dialogue here either. Indeed you might thing Suits isn’t anything special. But you would be wrong [5]. It’s hard to pin down what makes Suits so addictive. I suppose much of it boils down to Harvey Spectre being a badass. He’s of course the attorney who’ll do “anything to win a case, except break the law”[6]. The show really hinges on Harvey and Mike finding ridiculous solutions to the common legal challenges. The dynamic they’ve built between the pair with their snappy zingers and banter is always great. The ‘will they won’t they’ sexual tension between Harvey and his assistant Donna, and of course, let’s not forget about Louis. But with the beginning of Season 2 came the introduction of an actually credible villain Daniel Hardman, giving the show a proper narrative to keep the audience engaged. Moreover they seem to have finally dispelled with agonising of whether Mike’s secret that he never went to law school will come out and dealing with his scumbag ex-room mate [7]. Though Friday’s episode may have arguably wrapped things up almost a little too easily, with a few very convenient plot macguffins turning up at the last minute to fix everything, it’s still the cherry on top of an amusing season. So if you’ve yet to give the show a try, there’s never been a better time to suit up. Andrew Michaelson
0 Comments
CHARLES HOPKINS
Volume 2, Issue 6 (Originally Published 27 August 2012) I’ve been storing this one up since February. Nothing causes me to feel as much as the level three study room; feelings of attachment and knowing, of love and security, of frustration and anxiety, at times of downright loathing. I wrote in this column some months ago that law school is toxic for romance, but that was before I realised that I’ve developed feelings for something that are unrivalled to any I’ve experienced in my relatively short lifetime. I’m in love with the level three study area. She is my partner, my mistress and my closest friend. She is my East, she is my West; she is my North but not my South because of its location in the building. If it’s at all unclear to you – the preceding three paragraphs are absolutely not the truth. If you thought it possible I was in any way representing my true feelings then you either think I am an absolute law sicko (which would explain why last week someone said to me “oh you’re that guy who obsesses over irrelevant law school rubbish when he could be enjoying his spare time”), or you in some way feel romantically toward the study area. If you’re the latter, seek immediate help or kill yourself. The level three study area and I have a love-hate relationship. On the one hand, it’s a lovely space in which I can work in relative ergonomic comfort and aesthetic serenity, and even though it’s a silent study space, I can have full-blown exchanges about how super hard Torts research can be (SUBTLE SARCASM). On the other hand, my time there is forever spent studying and/or stressing; it’s worse than my negative association with my Eastern European language classes (I’m always running late, and I hate Russian). At a more abstract level it annoys me by virtue of its exclusivity. I understand the logic – the law school library has become too popular with main campus kids because we are so downright awesome (EVEN SUBTLER SARCASM). But on top of the logic comes the pretentiousness; it’s like being in the VIP section at a popular club – you buy the same drinks and listen to the same music, it’s just everyone in the general section thinks you’re a tosser (I can only assume those first two details because the one time I was in a VIP section, I didn’t remember any of it the next day – it was with J.Gil back in 1995 so details are sketchy). And yet as I rile against the study area, I know that as soon as my day off Uni rolls around, I’ll return to that timber-clad beauty with open arms that are carrying books. From henceforth I shall call it ‘Stockholm’, with me its syndrome. Catch Charles Hopkins at the Melbourne Writers Festival this Thursday for his seminar “Specific demographics repeated in-jokes: how not to write a column”. CLAIRE MARSHALL
Volume 2, Issue 6 (Originally Published 27 August 2012) Pussy Riot and Russian Secularism Three members of Pussy Riot, a Russian political punk band made up of women disguised by balaclavas and pseudonyms, were charged and convicted under article 213.2 the Russian Criminal Code. Article 213 makes hooliganism unlawful, which is, per the Code, a 'gross violation of the public order which expresses patent contempt for society'. The Code requires the mens rea of contempt to be accompanied by 'violence against private persons or the threat of its use' or destruction of public property, and carries a selection of compulsory terms including corrective labour and up to two years imprisonment. Pussy Riot's offence was performing a protest song against Russian President Vladimir Putin inside of the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow, film of which was used in a film clip for the track. They were in the building for only minutes before being escorted out by security guards. The trial was a shamble of 'witness' statements from groups including a testimony by psychiatrist who labelled one of the women's interest in political issues as an 'anomaly' and representatives from the Church itself who stated they were offended and shocked by Pussy Riot's demonstration. The women all argued that they were protesting against the Church's support for Putin, rather than the religion itself. Judge Marina Syrova cited heavily from the church's testimonies, ruling that 'the actions of the defendants reflected their hatred of religion' and found that they had 'committed hooliganism driven by religious hatred', sentencing them to the maximum penalty offered under Article 213.4; two years imprisonment in a penal colony. It is difficult, even with a broad reading of Article 213, to find that the women committed the necessary act to constitute the crime. The act requires that either violence is used against private persons or that property be damaged or threatened; and neither requirement was met by the women's performance. This casts enormous doubt on the integrity and independence of the residing judge. The global reaction has been one of outrage, state representatives and international bodies condemning the excessiveness of the penalty. Vale: Tony Nicklinson Tony Nicklinson, one of two men with locked-in syndrome who challenged the British High Court to change the legal ban on voluntary euthanasia died after refusing food and contracting pneumonia for the week since the Court rejected his claim. Nicklinson could not attempt suicide himself because of his condition and needed assistance. His lawyers attempted to argue that the doctrine of necessity should be allowed as a defence in assisted suicide cases. The Court rightly found that the decision to alter the existing law was one for Parliament, despite their recognition of what was a 'deeply moving' situation. Nicklinson's fight for autonomy in death drew vital attention to the need for a more progressive, humane approach to the end of life. He is survived by his wife and two daughters. Claire Marshall BRONWEN EWENS
Volume 2, Issue 6 (Originally Published 27 August 2012) 1. The allegations of rape would not be rape under English law. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law. 2. ‘But he hasn’t been charged! He is only wanted for questioning...’ Whereas a suspect is charged early on in common law jurisdictions, it is a final step in Sweden before trial, following a second and final interview with the suspect. Since charging occurs shortly before trial in Sweden, this means that there is a prima facie case against him with sufficient evidence for a trail; to be held. This is why extradition is possible. If someone is simply wanted for questioning it would not be. 3. He will be extradited from Sweden / UK to the USA, where he will face the death penalty for espionage. Under Article 3 of The European Convention on Human Rights, (‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’),both the UK and Sweden are prohibited from extraditing anyone who faces the death penalty. The convention has been incorporated into Swedish law, which makes it directly applicable for all state agencies, courts and the Government. It is theoretically possible that the US might charge Assange for another (non-political) crime than espionage and that ii) the US would be willing to issue a guarantee that the death penalty will not be issued. Sweden could extradite Assange in such a case, provided that the UK also approves. But it is hard to imagine what kind of non-political crime that would be. 4. Then Sweden should guarantee that there will be no extradition to USA. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law. Accordingly, any final word on an extradition would come from an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'. 5. UK law has been unduly harsh on him. Julian Assange repeatedly challenged the European Arrest Warrant in the United Kingdom. He lost at every stage, but each of his many legal arguments were heard and considered in extensive detail. Assange had the assistance of first rate legal advice and advocacy from some of the UK's leading human rights lawyers, as well as the benefit of having been granted bail in England in the meantime. The extradition was fought by him all the way to the Supreme Court. Assange has been afforded more opportunities to challenge the warrant for his arrest than almost any other defendant in English legal history. 6. UK authorities are likely to storm the Ecuadorian Embassy to capture him. The British Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 gives ministers a power to withdraw recognition from diplomatic premises. Ecuador could judicially review any proposed withdrawal, and the likely outcome would be long and expensive litigation rather than any kind of made-for-TV ‘storming’. The UK is currently in breach of its obligation to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, just as Assange is in breach of his bail conditions. In seeking to facilitate the extradition of Assange, the UK government is trying to uphold the law and not break it. Bronwen Ewens ANNIE ZHENG
Volume 2, Issue 6 (Originally Published 27 August 2012) August 27, 1927 – Canada Asks: Are Women ‘Persons’? On this day in 1927, five Canadian women filed a petition to the Supreme Court of Canada asking the question ‘Does the word 'Persons' in section 24 of the British North America Act 1867, include female persons?’ If so, women would be entitled to become appointed as members of the Canadian Senate. The Act comprised a major part of the Constitution of Canada. The test case arose out of the events occurring in 1916, when Emily Murphy – Canada’s first female magistrate – was challenged by a lawyer who believed that the Act did not permit women to preside as a judge of a court, arguing that the interpretation of ‘persons’ refers only to men. Murphy decided to run a test case by running for Senate, which was rejected by the Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden on the same basis. In 1927, Murphy and four other Canadian women (prominent women’s rights activists Irene Marryat Parlby, Louise Crummy McKinney, Nellie McClung and Henrietta Muir Edwards) decided to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to decide on the issue of women’s status under the Act s 24. The five women were to become the ‘Famous Five’. The subsequent decision handed down in Edwards v Canada (Attorney General) [1928] SCR 276[1930] held that women were NOT ‘qualified persons’ within the meaning of the Act, and therefore ineligible for a seat in the Senate. The women then appealed to the Privy Council in 1929, which remained at the time the highest court with respect to constitutional matters arising under the British Empire. The Privy Council overturned the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v Canada (Attorney General) [1930] AC 124. Lord Chancellor Sankey ruled that ‘the exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours’ and that the word ‘persons’ includes both men and women. The landmark decision also proposed the ‘living tree doctrine’ of constitutional interpretation. The Canadian Constitution was held to be ‘a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits…subject to development through usage and convention’. Thus, this approach required a ‘large and liberal interpretation’ which reflected the needs of a modern Canadian society. Following the Privy Council decision – now known as the landmark Persons Case – the first female senator, Cairine Reay Wilson, was appointed in 1930. Murphy remained the British Empire’s first female judge, Parlby became Alberta’s first female Cabinet Minister, McClung and McKinney became members of the Alberta legislature and Edwards became a founding member of the Victorian Order of Nurses. Annie Zheng Volume 2, Issue 6 (Originally Published 27 August 2012)
COMMONWEALTH Solicitor-General Stephen Gageler SC has been appointed the nation's next High Court judge. Mr Gageler will replace influential judge Bill Gummow, who has been on the High Court bench for more than 17 years. He will retire on October 9, when he turns the mandatory retirement age of 70. Now the 49th appointee to the court, Mr Gageler has served as the Commonwealth Solicitor General since September 2008. In that time he’s handled his share of wins and losses, from the Malaysia Solution invalidity debacle to the Tobacco Plain Packaging victory. Gageler grew up in NSW, studied law at the Australian National University and completed his Master of Laws at Harvard University in 1987. He’s also a black belt in taekwondo . When Gageler takes his seat in October, the court will consist of four appointments by the Howard government, two by the Rudd government and one by the Gillard government. With Justice Heydon set to retire in March 2013, The Gillard Government will have the opportunity to appoint one more Justice before the next election. At the current ago of 54, if Mr Gageler serves until he turns 70, he will remain on the High Court until July 8, 2028. |