Search

A stand-alone strangulation offence was introduced in Queensland, Australia in 2016. One of the elements of the Queensland strangulation offence is that the victim did not consent to the strangulation. This paper reviews the harms and dangers associated with strangulation before overviewing the debates about the use of strangulation during sex. Drawing on focus group discussions conducted with domestic violence support workers and men's behaviour change workers, we discuss four overlapping themes identified in the discussions. These were perceptions that: strangulation during sex is normalised; consent is not informed; it happens in the context of coercive control; and the requirement of consent opens a loophole in the strangulation offence. Considering the issues raised, and the clear risks and harms, we suggest that consideration should be given to whether it is ever possible to consent to strangulation and we consider possible reforms such as following the two-tiered approaches to consent used in the England and Wales law and elsewhere in Australia. We also conclude that law reforms such as these are partial solutions and there is significant need for more community education about the risks and harms of strangulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a timely and critical reappraisal of the interconnected, but discrete, doctrines of loss of self-control, under ss 54-56 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and self-defence within s. 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The loss of control conceptualisation renders it difficult for defendants to claim the partial defence where exculpatory self-defence has been rejected, and fear of serious violence is adduced. This doctrinal incoherence has been exacerbated by the fact that s. 43 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 effectively legitimises the use of disproportionate force in self-defence, but only in 'startled householder' cases. A more appropriate avenue of reform is provided by developments in Australian jurisdictions. This comparative extirpation engages the introduction of a new partial defence of self-preservation/psychological self-defence predicated on the notion of excessive utilisation of force in self-defence as in New South Wales, supplemented with a 'social framework' provision, akin to that in Victoria. The new defence would avoid the problems associated with requiring the abused woman to establish a loss of self-control and/or affording an affirmative defence in 'startled householder' cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People-smuggling offences in Australia carry long mandatory terms of imprisonment. The penalties are so severe that many members of the judiciary have taken the unusual step of criticising them. An analysis of the sentencing regime for these offences demonstrates that the penalties are, indeed, too harsh. They are disproportionate to the objective seriousness of the offences and are incapable of deterring would-be offenders. If a fixed penalty is to be maintained for such offences, it should be in the order of imprisonment for three months--not five years--with a minimum term of three years. The offences discussed in this article relate to Australia, however, the people-smuggling phenomenon occurs in most developed nations. Thus the principles discussed below are of more wide-ranging application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current theories of corporate criminal liability in the UK are derived from the nominalist perspective. From this perspective, a company is nothing more than a collection of individuals. This article reviews three prominent models of fault that are based upon this perspective. It will be shown that these models have severe limitations. Primarily, these models fail to reflect the reality of modern corporate decision-making. This article, after briefly justifying the imposition of liability directly upon corporations, proceeds to examine models that are based upon the notion of organisational fault. It will be argued that the corporate culture doctrine, as implemented in Australia, is the most suitable model for imposing liability upon a corporation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]