Search

This article critically reviews selected topics covered by recent cases that have impacted on taxpayer rights. The first is where taxpayers contend that an assessment is tentative or provisional, or otherwise tainted by conscious maladministration. After an extensive review of the cases the author concludes that it is very difficult for a taxpayer to be successful especially as weight is given to the presumption of innocence and exactness of proof required of the taxpayer. As a result of the author's review of the cases the question is posed if there may be additional bases for setting aside an assessment other than the two specifically alluded to by the High court in Futuris . The second critically reviews the cases where the courts consider the question of onus. Here the question of procedural fairness and the model litigant rules is important. The courts should ensure that these rules are scrupulously followed. It seems this may not always be the case. Two additional issues arise in relation to onus. A taxpayer cannot rely on the reasons for an objection decision to discharge the onus on it. Procedural fairness and the model litigant rules suggest taxpayers should be able to do so. The final aspect is where the Commissioner is of the opinion that fraud or evasion is present (section 170 ITAA36). Taxpayers are not entitled to reasons why the Commissioner reached such an opinion. This would appear to be contrary to all principles of a fair trial and the adversarial system of litigation followed in Australia. The article concludes that taxpayer rights are impacted adversely by some of the judgments considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article states that in Australia, there are varying standards for holding children accountable for criminal actions, despite the legal presumption of doli incapax that children under 14 cannot be held responsible. However, depending on the territory, if a child of age ten or more is senior, this presumption can be challenged, which leads to inconsistent thresholds being applied.

Wrongful conviction is an international problem that has attracted considerable research into identifying its prevalence, causes and correlates. Australia is not void of erroneous convictions; however, the international findings do not neatly apply to the Australian context. This article considers the wrongful conviction in Australia from a wide-angle perspective of investigation through to exoneration. It considers systemic issues related to the detection, correction and consequences of wrongful conviction, identifying how and why errors may occur at different stages of the criminal justice process. The article specifically covers the investigative process and issues related to the collection and processing of physical/forensic evidence and witness evidence, post-conviction issues in the identification and correction of wrongful convictions, and the consequences of wrongful conviction for exonerated individuals in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right of the common law described as 'undoubted, axiomatic' and a 'golden thread running through English criminal law'. In 2013, New South Wales enacted the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), which was praised from all sides of politics for revitalising the presumption of innocence. However, subsequent to the enactment of the Act there were some concerns raised that it was 'soft on crime'. Thus, the NSW Government announced a review of the Act. The Government has since enacted the Bail Amendment Act 2014 (NSW), which adopts all 12 recommendations of the Review. The changes have been strongly criticised by legal academics and practitioners for allegedly violating the presumption of innocence. This comment analyses the changes to the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) to determine whether they do indeed violate this fundamental right. It concludes that changes to the Act are misguided, as they are inconsistent with the presumption of innocence. Thus, the changes constitute a 'retrograde step' in the direction of the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]