What did they say? Forensic Transcription

Forensic Transcription Australia seeks to "raise public awareness of a legal anomaly that compromises the fairness of trials in our criminal courts on a weekly basis".

The site has an interesting video showing how priming, via a transcript, can influence a person's perception of an audio recording.

On the conviction of Dr. Hadiza Bawa-Garba and Isabel Amaro over the death of Jack Adcock

Andrew McDonald's oped was the first I had heard of this case and so I might be biased by his framing of it: Death of British boy has worried junior doctors all over the world - with good reason

Report in Fairfax: Australian doctors 'disturbed' by manslaughter conviction against Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba

This is how the UK tabloid press seem to be reporting the case: What about my son? Mother's fury as doctor who let boy die goes free after pleading she has to care for her own disabled child

By contrast, Saurabh Jha MD: To Err is Homicide in Britain – The Case of Dr. Hadiza Bawa-Garba

In the ward, Jack received enalapril. Dr. Bawa-Garba had not prescribed enalapril, and she clearly stated in her plan that enalapril must be stopped – the drug lowers blood pressure and is absolutely contraindicated in shock. Nor was enalapril given by the nursing staff – they stick to the doctor’s orders.

So who gave the enalapril?

And the BMA's statement: The Bawa-Garba ruling: our response

"Secret Barrister" has written about the case, pondering "Trial by a jury of one’s peers" and the similarities between the situation that Dr Bawa-Garba found herself in, and that of barristers involved in criminal trials in the UK: Bawa-Garba: Is it right to let lay juries rule on matters of professional competence?

RAJ AC Explains has a two parter on the case: Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba – Part 1: what does this case look like to medics? Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba – part 2: what the courts said and why it matters

Michael Skapinker from the Financial Times makes some good points about the impact of the Dr Bawa-Garba decision on public safety: We should learn from doctors’ mistakes, not fire them

Peacock Johnston Solicitors discuss Scottish law and courts: “Doctors in the Dock: Are the Courts moving towards assigning criminal liability to Health Professionals?”

Is Baird turning NSW into a police state?

David Shoebridge argues that The Charming Mike Baird Is Turning NSW Into A Police State.

David Marr: Don't use the Lindt Cafe seige to justify new laws

David Marr in The Sydney siege should not be used to justify draconian new anti-terrorism laws expresses the opinion we don't need new laws to deal with the likes of Man Haron Monis.

Australia was not changed in the early hours of this morning. But it may be changed if these terrible events in Sydney are used to drive another agenda altogether: the criminalisation of the press and the needless extension of surveillance into the lives of all of us all in the name of fighting terrorism.

Police shootings - the reality

An interesting YouTube video by the Eugene Police Department: Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings.

Five unanswered questions on the recent counter-terrorism raids

Paul Farrell writes: Counter-terrorism raids: five unanswered questions.

The real existential threat to us

Jonathan Holmes explains that Islamic State is not an existential threat to us but climate change is.

Criminal justice in Queensland is becoming more medievel

In The Great Leap Backward: Criminal Law Reform with the Hon Jarrod Bleijie Andrew Trotter and Harry Hobbs examine recent changes to Queensland criminal law. The abstract:

On 3 April 2012, the Honourable Member for Kawana, Jarrod Bleijie MP, was
sworn in as Attorney-General for Queensland and Minister for Justice. In the
period that followed, Queensland’s youngest Attorney-General since Sir
Samuel Griffith in 1874 has implemented substantial reforms to the criminal
law as part of a campaign to ‘get tough on crime’. Those reforms have been
heavily and almost uniformly criticised by the profession, the judiciary and the
academy. This article places the reforms in their historical context to illustrate
that together they constitute a great leap backward that unravels centuries of
gradual reform calculated to improve the state of human rights in criminal
justice.

Government regulation of the Internet

A couple of interesting articles:

In You use a computer, you think you're safe... Peter Martin explains how violating the terms and conditions of a web site may be a criminal offence in the USA.

In For Our Information: Politicians Need To Let Go Suelette Dreyfus looks at why Governments want to control and regulate the Internet.

Data rentention and the National Security Inquiry

A good post by Nick Ross on data retention proposals: Why are people so worried about data retention and the National Security Inquiry?

Multinationals want the right to sue Governments

In Behind the smoke: The corporate war on us Peter Martin has blogged about the attempt of multinational corporations to have the right to sue sovereign governments:

They want what is known as an Investor State Dispute Settlement Mechanism. They want it in order to allow them to drag Australia and other sovereign governments before specially constituted international courts.