<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title> &#187; Criminal Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/category/criminal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au</link>
	<description>David Cormack, Barrister</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 06:34:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>CLA – s.45 &amp; 6(2) of the Criminal Code – intentional torts and defences</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/cla-%e2%80%93-s-45-62-of-the-criminal-code-%e2%80%93-intentional-torts-and-defences/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/cla-%e2%80%93-s-45-62-of-the-criminal-code-%e2%80%93-intentional-torts-and-defences/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 01:45:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injuries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injuries CLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injuries Criminal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Corliss v Gibbings-Johns [2010] QCA 233 Further to my earlier posting the appellant raised liability defences on appeal that were not considered by the trial judge. In particular the appellant argued that sub-section 6(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1899 and/or section 45 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 provided a statutory defence. Their Honours [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/cla-%e2%80%93-s-45-62-of-the-criminal-code-%e2%80%93-intentional-torts-and-defences/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill &#8211; Proclamation Dates</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/civil-and-criminal-jurisdiction-reform-and-modernisation-amendment-bill-proclomation-dates/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/civil-and-criminal-jurisdiction-reform-and-modernisation-amendment-bill-proclomation-dates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:15:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1953</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[  Further to my earlier posting the start dates for various parts of the Bill were proclaimed on 26 August. A number of incidental amendments commence on 1 September, with the substantial changes to the criminal law jurisdiction and financial jurisdiction of the civil courts to commence on 1 November 2010.   I refer you [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/civil-and-criminal-jurisdiction-reform-and-modernisation-amendment-bill-proclomation-dates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hearsay and proving delegation</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/hearsay-and-proving-delegation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/hearsay-and-proving-delegation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:36:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1914</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dixon v LeKich [2010] QCA 213 The photographs of the vehicle were the sole basis of the evidence in a disputed speed camera trial. On appeal McGill J dismissed the prosecution on the basis it was inadmissible because the delegation to prove the otherwise hearsay evidence of the photographs had not been proved.  What had [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/hearsay-and-proving-delegation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contempt of court – enforcement summons and hearing</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/contempt-of-court-%e2%80%93-enforcement-summons-and-hearing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/contempt-of-court-%e2%80%93-enforcement-summons-and-hearing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Aug 2010 00:59:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Contempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1911</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Remely v Vandenberg &#38; Ors [2010] QCA 214 The appeal concerned in large the conviction and sentence of 6 months for contempt of court. The contempt flowed from failure to answer and produce records at an enforcement hearing. The genesis of the action flows from a $200 electricity bill which was originally disputed, culminating in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/contempt-of-court-%e2%80%93-enforcement-summons-and-hearing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/civil-and-criminal-jurisdiction-reform-and-modernisation-amendment-bill/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/civil-and-criminal-jurisdiction-reform-and-modernisation-amendment-bill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injuries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injuries Workers' Comp]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1898</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Bill   The Bill was passed on 3 August 2010, but is yet to be proclaimed. I refer you to the objectives of the Bill in the explanatory notes:   Objectives of the Bill   The objectives of the Bill are to: • expand the jurisdiction of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/civil-and-criminal-jurisdiction-reform-and-modernisation-amendment-bill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Duty of litigation practitioners to prepare for hearings and costs restrictions from Legal Aid</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/duty-of-litigation-practitioners-to-prepare-for-hearings-and-costs-restrictions-from-legal-aid/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/duty-of-litigation-practitioners-to-prepare-for-hearings-and-costs-restrictions-from-legal-aid/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Conduct]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1817</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Re: N (a solicitor) [2010] QSC 267 CATCHWORDS: Profession and trades – Lawyers – Duties and liabilities – Duties to court – Generally – Duty to ensure matters are dealt with expeditiously – Criminal matter Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 418 Ashmore v Corporation of Lloyd’s [1992] 1 WLR 446, cited Fryberg J In [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/duty-of-litigation-practitioners-to-prepare-for-hearings-and-costs-restrictions-from-legal-aid/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legal Aid Quarterly e-newsletter</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/legal-aid-quarterly-e-newsletter/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/legal-aid-quarterly-e-newsletter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 01:25:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media alerts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1656</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[June 2010 In this issue: New general inquiries number now available Free legal advice for south-west Queensland flood victims Legal Aid can help with civil matters Sponsor Anthony Reilly for the Vinnie’s CEO Sleepout Law Week hypothetical attracts full house Updated factsheet on grants criteria changes Preferred supplier reference group takes shape Women’s Legal Aid the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/legal-aid-quarterly-e-newsletter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justices Act – complaints: particulars, duplicity, limitations, power to amend &amp; costs</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/justices-act-%e2%80%93-complaints-particulars-duplicity-limitations-power-to-amend-costs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/justices-act-%e2%80%93-complaints-particulars-duplicity-limitations-power-to-amend-costs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 02:44:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1626</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The decision his Honour Wall S.C DCJ De Bray v Cohen;Macefield Pty Ltd v Cohen [2008] QDC 275 and the subsequent appeal are worth noting with respect to the unique nature of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) and it’s requirements Cohen v Macefield P/L &#38; Ors [2010] QCA 95. Brisbane Barrister – David Cormack]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/justices-act-%e2%80%93-complaints-particulars-duplicity-limitations-power-to-amend-costs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Industrial Court of Queensland finds against High Court’s Kirk decision</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/industrial-court-of-queensland-finds-against-high-court%e2%80%99s-kirk-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/industrial-court-of-queensland-finds-against-high-court%e2%80%99s-kirk-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:24:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OHS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[N.K. Collins Industries Pty Ltd AND Peter Vincent Twigg (C/2009/56)   The Industrial Court of Queensland has found against the principles set down by the High Court in the Kirk decision, on the basis that the relevant legislation in Queensland and New South Wales can not be considered analogous. Read more of the article by Norton [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/industrial-court-of-queensland-finds-against-high-court%e2%80%99s-kirk-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation  Amendment Bill 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/civil-and-criminal-jurisdiction-reform-and-modernisation-amendment-bill-2010/</link>
		<comments>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/civil-and-criminal-jurisdiction-reform-and-modernisation-amendment-bill-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:23:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>davidcormack</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/?p=1445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation  Amendment Bill 2010 was introduced to parliament on 13 April 2010, as stage 1 of the foreshadowed amendments. The civil jurisdiction will be increased: Magistrates Court $50,000 to $150,000 District Court $250,000 to $750,000   However, the bulk of the amendments are directed to criminal proceedings and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.barristerdirect.com.au/civil-and-criminal-jurisdiction-reform-and-modernisation-amendment-bill-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
