You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘law’ tag.

In todays Western Australian newspaper (our lovely attempt at news) was an article, announcing the banning of wearing those old grey/white wigs by lawyers and judges in criminal proceedings.

The article can be found here: WA judges, lawyers to dump wigs.

For those of you who don’t know what they are, legal wigs usually look like this:
Photobucket
They are incredibly expensive and are apparently made of horse hair.

Now, as far as my understanding goes, these wigs aren’t the most comfortable part of a lawyer’s dresscode, and they can be itchy, but why the need to ‘ban’ them from being worn?

The article suggests that many lawyers LIKE wearing the wigs. Many cite tradition as their reasoning, however there are others. So again, why ban the wigs?

The banning of the wig in courts doesn’t come as a huge surprise, they are already banned in civil trials in WA. What baffles me is this word ‘ban’. Why BAN something many people seem to like? Why not just make it optional? It seems all a little bit extremist in my opinion – if you don’t want to wear the wigs, don’t wear it. This man who banned them is clearly no fun and doesn’t like costumes! Don’t ruin something for everyone else who likes them! That’s not fair at all! I was kind of excited about one day being able to wear a wig in court… There goes that dream…

I guess I’ll have to settle for badly photoshopping a wig onto a photo of myself…
Photobucket

Come on WA Chief Justice! Make wig wearing ATLEAST optional, you’re taking half the fun out of being a lawyer!

p.s. i AM wearing clothes in that photo, it’s a strapless dress – wore it to law ball, only one i have of my head at the correct angle for the wig… see? YOU CAN SEE MY DRESS!

Advertisements

Good morning to all thou who follow me faithfully, religiously (very few) and those who I force to read my words of exceptional wisdom (most people),

On the night of Friday the 21st of August, I, Georgia, will be attending the annual UWA Blackstone Society Law Ball. That’s right, me, me, me, me, me, me… ME AT BALL! (or, more suitably, meatball!)

I still haven’t selected a dress to wear! (Although have managed to narrow it down to a choice of three.) And I honestly actually currently do NOT own a pair of suitable shoes to wear to this ball! And I certainly haven’t even THOUGHT about my hair yet!!! Is this not utterly ridiculous?

Well, atleast I’ve got me a dress… *cough cough Katieeeeeee* (let’s go shopping!)

So, as it must appear, I am more than excited and stressed over this Friday evening approaching us, especially considering the success of last year where Jo and I ate broccolini covered in mash ‘tato that resulted in some very interestingly placed stains over my brand new dress… (sad face!)

In conclusion: YAY LAW BALL! I love pretty (and some ugly) people all extra prettified (p.s. Ellen Degeneres is Bookmaster! – she just announced that on the television) and is pretty (and some ugly) dresses with fancy-looking food (that really isn’t that fancy) served alongside unlimited cheap champagne! EPIC TIMES AHEAD!

In other news: my friend Anne completed the painting she was comissioned to do for Devilles (which is an epic night out venue in Perth) and its commencement of display is imminent (ie this week!). So I demand, loyal and unloyal readers, that you all head STRAIGHT down to Devilles (your local epic night out venue) and check out the amazing artwork of the amazing girl that is Anne! YAY!

Good day.

The ABC news site has coverage on the case I covered in my last post.

The story: Man charged over sexual assault of Perth prostitute is obviously going to be one we’re sure to see alot of in the coming weeks – especially when it goes to trial at the end of the month.

I will keep a close eye on the ABC website, the evening news and the newspapers when I get them (Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday). If you see anything on the case that it is likely I have missed – please leave a comment with the source.

Expect more soon!

xoxo

p.s. I got my History assignment back. 71%! Can you believe that? Seriously man, it was not worth 71%. I am thrilled. ^_^

p.p.s. I am now getting 67 cents to the USA dollar. Man, I told my parents that the economy was going to crash. I told them this in the lead up to the Australian Federal Election last year. They told me to shush, I wasn’t an economics expert and nothing of the sort would happen! I should’ve converted my cash to US dollars and pounds and euros last year

I like watching the news. Even the bogus news like A Current Affair and Today Tonight.
Obviously the news tells us everything we need to know, like whats happening in politics, finance, weather, sport and is Lindsay Lohan really a lesbian or just desperate for attention? All the most important and hard hitting questions and answers that will be crucial to my everyday decisions – will I really truly like the taste of girls cherry chapstick if I kiss her?

But tonights hard hitting question: can you rape a consenting prostitute?

Remember, consent can be withdrawn at any time – and can turn into rape. So for the sake of this, we must understand that, as far as the facts go, at no time during the act, did the prostitute withdraw her consent.

So now, let us consider the facts of this trial currently being heard in the Perth Magistrates Court:

A man (We shall call him D, for defendant) went into a brothel or similar and hired the services of a prostitute (V, as in victim) to do well… what prostitutes do.

D wrote V a cheque for her services. Later on, V went to cash the cheque and it bounced.

Apparently this occurred twice. (Atleast that’s what I think the voice over lady said…)

The procecution (P, for prosecution), who are representing V, are claiming that D was fully aware that he did not have the funds to pay for V’s services and that he knew the cheque would bounce.

D has now been charged with rape and potentially fraud.

I think I’ll get a better look at the facts before I go making my opinions known.
At this stage I think the outcome will be based very much on whether or not D is proved to have known that his cheque would bounce. If he can successfully prove he honestly and reasonably thought that his cheque was valid and would process, then he might have a defence under section 23 of the Criminal Code which covers Mistake of Fact – at which point he might get off.

I will be watching this case very closely. Very influential precedent could arise from this.

I’ll keep you posted!

xoxo

EDIT: I just wanted to clarify that the term ‘rape’ isn’t actually used in the WA Criminal Code. The terminology used is infact “sexual penetration without consent”. And there are cases that will no doubt be considered by the courts. If you’re interested, check out the cases of Ibbs (WA) from 1987 and Papadimitropoulos (sp?) (Vic – a High Court decision). Last semester my Criminal Law lecturer put the question to us: “If A agrees to pay a fee for prostitute V’s sexual services and then runs off without paying, is this rape?” There was no answer, and as far as I know, no specific precedent for it. As I said, this is going to be important.

Alright, I’m all better, but my interwebs are not. They are still super dodge. But I managed to get on here to update you all, so enjoy or else!

Contract is always a fun place to be… Not so much.

See, we have this fabulously weird lecturer. I’ve mentioned her before. She talks a hundred times faster than my fastest pace, which is intense and probably causes time to go into a vortex and spin backwards which is PROBABLY why our lecturers always seem to drag on forever. She’s also always late, and it’s the kind of late that you look at your watch and reckon she won’t show… BUT THEN SHE DOES! It’s freaky. I reckon she has some kind of sick grasp upon the universe. I wish I had her skillz.

One time, our lecturer – who, is a hoot, I must admit – accused the law of being an ass. Well, lecturer lady, I didn’t know the law was a donkey, I always thought that was one of the American political parties. But ok, if you tell me the law is a donkey, them I’m sure it looks a little like this:

Photobucket
figure 7: Judge Ass? Oh wait, she was already like that before this poor attempt at photoshopping happened…

(Just FYI: That’s Judge Judy, for all you failures who have never tuned in to bad day time tv! Quit your job and learn to bum! Seriously.)

Anyways, back to my lecturer, and her crazy vortex-controlling antics.

Two days ago, when my interwebs was still all down in the dumps and so was my whirly stomach, I was sitting in Contract, as I do for a good three or so hours each week. (I know, it doesn’t seem like alot of time, but if you actually tell me to stop whinging, I’ll take you along and you won’t ever EVER cross me ever again in your life!)

And our lecturer PROMISED us, after about a billion very boring, very lifeless, very selfish cases, that’d we’d enjoy the next one. Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation.

Single. Most. Boring. Case. Ever. (and I’m not just saying that for the sake of this post)

ANYWAYS! The point of all this was: we were discussing very very boring and ridiculous caes about people suing those travel planner companies because they “didn’t enjoy” their vacations. Like, whatevs, get off your big fat ass (see above) organise your own goddamn holiday!

And it got me thinking… If people can sue holiday planners because they don’t enjoy their trips… can I sue my lecturer for promising me that I’d enjoy the case that I happened to have found to be as boring as batshit? Something to ponder there…

In other news, you should all go check out my Twi-blog: HERE! It’s not getting nearly enough love.

Over and out!

Uni recommenced today, for me. Yesterday for everyone else. I don’t do Mondays.

HAPPY TUESDAY!

I currently reside in Contract Law – the most deathly of death classes that you could possibly take. Infact, it’s so deathly that if I talk about it any longer, death might just appear in the form of the GRIM REAPER and take me away to death land. Then I’d have to find my way out of hell, Bill & Ted style.

Having said all that, that does sound kind of:
Photobucket
figure 6: Bill & Ted & Georgia’s Most Excellent Adventure/Bogus Journey!

Anyways, as I have previously stated, I truely do not understand contract law. At all. End of story. Ok?

But hey, I had politics earlier. That was fun.

DVM (aka the most superior lecturer ever) discussed justice and how we create the most ideal ustice system. Apparently, if we sit behind a “veil of ignorance”, according to some philosopher man, Rolls, (he’s a-rollin’-rollin’-rollin’), where we don’t know our gender or race or class or talents or anything, we can think up the fairest justice system possible. This is because we don’t know where we stand in society so we have to decide what the best system is that will suit us, no matter where we end up.

The whole idea of this ‘veil of ignorance’ is that the most ideal form of justice will be created because we want to be in an ideal position no matter where we end up when we come out from behind thie ‘veil’.

Really, the whole thing just makes me think of Sirius Black from Harry Potter, falling through that veil in Order of the Phoenix and subsequently dying.

Do we die behind the veil of ignorance? Well, I believe so. Because our individual selves cease to exist, we don’t know who we are, what we’re capable of, we just know that there’s potential that we’ll come out the other side and fit in somewhere and we’ve got to work out the best system that will suit us no matter where we come out. Daunting, truly daunting.

And creepy how I can draw parallels between politics and Harry Potter. Man I’m a Potternut.

Anyways, I’m not convinced. I don’t think we can just work out the most ideal justice system if we are ignorant to ourselves. Cos we might potentially be ignorant to others then – which means we might be ignorant to all the possibilities of places we might end up, and then we’d just be screwed.

Alas, I must run. Places to do, people to go and things to see. I mean… whatever. I don’t know what I mean. xoxo.

This blog is dedicated to Jo, who is leaving me on Wednesday. What a bitch. Seriously, how selfish, leaving me all alone here to fend for myself! WHAT KIND OF A FRIEND IS THAT! 😛

In other news, I will be extreamly sad, sadder than any of the rest of you lot so whatevs to your face.

So here we go, Jo. (Yes I can rhyme, bitch.) This is for you, because you are my best and favourite and twin and all those other awesome things.

First of all, let’s talk about things Jo likes:

Britney Spears, who likes to ask ‘Do you want a piece of meat?’. To which I say, ‘Yes Britney Spears, I would infact like a piece of meat.’

Katy Perry, who, infact did not kiss a girl, thus she is not able to comment on whether or not she liked it and if infact, the chapstick was cherry flavoured. These facts will be upheld in a court of law.

Speaking of law, Jo does law, I’m still unsure as to whether or not she likes it, but for now, let us put the LAW on Jo’s list of likable things. Of course, if all else fails, we can just pretend that by the LAW, I infact meant to say GEORGIA LAW, which of course Jo is a huge fan of.

Miley Cyrus. Well not really, but just to make it very clear, Jo, I’ve got my eyes set on you and I’m ready to aim. And I’m just being Miley.

Chutney Marys. Indian food makes us bloated.

Supermarkets. The all important destination for instant food goods! And discovering new vegetables. And realising that a red onion is not a red capsicum when you cut it open.

Cheezels. Because you can stick them on your fingers and eat them whilst still successfully changing gears… sort of.

Road maps. They’re useful for not driving around Mandurah in circles in the middle of the night.

Shoes. All shoes are Jo’s, bitch!

Television babies. They’re cuter in the box.

Old people having sex. Especially Jack Nicolson and Diane Keaton.

Alcohol. But alcohol doesn’t like Jo. Especially at the airport.

The Court. It’s full of drag queens and really trashy, cheesy pop music.

Coffee, especially when Jason makes it. Apparently he makes great coffee. Apparently, because I don’t like coffee.

And most importantly, me. Jo loves me. But why wouldn’t she?

And that’s it. Jo, how about you just call the whole trip off and stay here instead? It’s better that way.

xoxo,
g.

Last night, me and Jo went to the Law Ball. People would ask me who I was there with and I’d reply “Jo” and they’d ask me who this boy was because I’d never mentioned him before…

No, you doofuses, Jo as in my best friend Jo. Geez.

Well, we drank too much champagne, I stole alot of chocolate, Fresher got himself kicked out and Jo fell asleep on a chair.

We discovered, this morning, during my first ever real hangover, that almost all the photos Jo and I took consisted of us eating/feeding eachother.

See figure 2.

broccsmall
figure 2: Georgia & Jo eat broccolini!

We also danced a bit. And fell over alot. I got a stain on my dress but I can’t afford the drycleaners because I only just got it drycleaned a week ago! We’re all class. Seriously.

Law Ball was pretty epic, especially with all that nasty cheap champers that wasn’t even real champers! (Sparking wine is so disgusting.)

Fun night. Not alot to report deep philosophically wise – although we ended up seated a table number 1. I reckon that says WE’RE NUMBER ONE! WE’RE NUMBER ONE! Yeah, you know I’m better than you.

xoxo

p.s. that broccolini was covered in mash ‘tato, it was innocent broccolini!

I am learning about document titles, which are very special important bits of paper, but I clearly and obviously don’t know anything about them nor will I ever understand them, as a boy just asked for some examples and our tutor was like: “No! You will not understand it is very complex blah blah blah.”

Clearly these pieces of paper as not that important, otherwise she’d want us to know about them… Unless they’re so important they’re too important for our ears! WHOA! Can you imagine that? How important! Wonder what’s on them, ASIO’s secret password? How to get to Diagon Alley? (Because it’s not through Collins…) Edward Cullen’s address? (My god, please let it be.) It better be, considering how important she’s making them sound.

I’m a little bored, as you can imagine. I don’t get this case but I won’t ask. I’ll look it up online later, or ask dad, who knows… Someone who makes more sense than the small, fast-talking lady up the front of the class. TOO FAST! She talks like me, and we all know I can’t be a lecturer becaue I talk as fast as a werewolf runs.

I am now a blogger. I shall be famous! Like the TwilightGuy or something!