Technology companies developing autonomous digital systems ('ADS'), including autonomous vehicles ('AVs'), have enjoyed significant regulatory leeway as consumers embrace novel technologies and agencies struggle to adapt accountability mechanisms. Public tolerance of companies pushing ADS to market with minimal regulation is now waning as consumer awareness of harms caused by ADS grows. Regulating ADS is complicated by the significant influence which technology companies have over regulatory agencies. The risk of regulatory capture is increased due to the information asymmetry existing between technology companies and regulators. The scale and pace at which companies are developing ADS means that capture dynamics can expand to capture regulators and the structures and processes of a State. This paper argues that ex ante regulatory measures are likely to be more effective, and reduce the risk of capture, than seeking to hold companies to account after harm is caused. This paper examines the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 (UK) which establishes a proactive regulatory framework defining the legal responsibilities of the companies developing and selling AVs, and the people using them. The paper argues that this model of liability can be applied to other forms of ADS, including autonomous weapons systems, to rebalance power relations and counter the risk of capture.
First Nations people in Australia are among the highest growing carceral populations in the world, and yet countless attempts to reverse the trend have been unsuccessful. This paper contends that notions of race play a foundational role in the over-incarceration of First Nations people, and to that end applies a Critical Race Theory lens to this crisis. By considering the historical and jurisprudential development of Critical Race Theory from its inception in the 1970s and looking at how the lens has been utilised outside of the United States, an opportunity arises to reimagine the problem of over-incarceration. This paper conducts a comparative analysis of two key cases which center race: Brown v Board of Education in the United States, and Mabo v Queensland (No 2) in Australia, to illustrate the practical limitations of symbolic judgments and how the legacies of these cases contribute to the treatment of racialised people in Western criminal justice systems. These analyses, supported by consideration of Canadian and Australian sentencing decisions, ultimately lead to the conclusion that Critical Race Theory underscores the failure of law to provide justice to racialised people in the criminal justice system.
This article examines the overriding legislative exception to indefeasibility. In other work, I examine ss 6, 10, and 11 - three intriguing provisions found in the Real Property Act 1886 (SA) ('RPA'). In this article, I argue that while those provisions represent the Parliament's attempt to entrench Torrens system indefeasibility of title by imposing 'manner and form' requirements on future alterations to the RPA, judicial consideration, at least of s 6, means that the attempt has, to a great extent, failed. The important part of the story, though, is the role that courts play in sorting out what these entrenching or 'manner and form' provisions might mean. In working that out, one must also account for the fact that the courts, in interpreting those provisions, are themselves amending that legislation sub silentio. Often overlooked, judicial interpretation operates in plain sight. And when it engages in the interpretation or construction of a statute for the purposes of clarifying its operation and application, a court amends, and possibly even repeals, parts of that legislation.
Within the criminal justice system, research indicates that a significant majority of offenders - over 90% - have endured some form of trauma. This article critically examines how trauma is considered as a mitigating factor in the sentencing process within the State of Victoria. While Victorian sentencing principles recognise the relevance of an offender's personal circumstances, there remains a lack of clarity regarding which principles are most applicable when assessing the impact of trauma. Further, the process of weighing trauma in accordance with the doctrine of instinctive synthesis poses substantial challenges for sentencing judges. This article examines the intersection of trauma and sentencing, proposing a more nuanced and principled approach that integrates contemporary understandings of trauma into legal decision-making. By advancing a framework for consistent and fair consideration of trauma, the criminal justice system can enhance its commitment to justice and rehabilitation, ultimately fostering more equitable sentencing outcomes.
