Law Report

The Nine Network's Federal Court victory over high-profile surgeon Munjed Al Muderis marks the first time a media organisation has defended a defamation case on public interest grounds. And two people who claim to have directed a documentary being screened at the Melbourne International Film Festival are at the centre of an unusual legal fight.

The Federal Court has awarded a record $305,000 in damages to a young woman who was sexually harassed by her employer at a Sydney fast food restaurant. And is it time to change how Australian law defines terrorism?

As more countries move towards formal recognition of a Palestinian state, the Law Report examines the conditions for statehood under international law. And what are the risks, benefits and opportunities presented by electronic wills?

Damien Sturzacker, a partner at Mark Lawyers, shines a light on a groundbreaking legal case involving Australian women suing Qatar Airways over invasive body searches at Doha airport. He discusses the emotional toll of these experiences and the significance of a federal court ruling allowing their lawsuit to proceed. The conversation delves into passenger rights under the Montreal Convention, the complexities of navigating legal battles in Qatar, and the intersection of human rights and climate change accountability in international law.

As the International Court of Justice prepares to deliver a long-awaited climate advisory opinion, the Law Report explores the Federal Court ruling that Australia's government does not have a legal responsibility to protect Torres Strait islands from the impacts of climate change. And Denmark is planning to give citizens copyright protection over their face and voice.

Angela Webster, a transplant physician and epidemiology professor, discusses how the medical definition of death in Australia lags behind modern science. Dominique Martin, an ethics expert, voices concerns over financial incentives for organ donation, while Megan Taves, a health law academic, delves into the tricky legal definitions surrounding human tissue. The conversation highlights the pressing need for legislative updates to enhance organ donation practices and address ethical issues, such as transplant tourism and the regulation of human milk.

Terry Carney, an Emeritus Law Professor who exposed the Robo-debt crisis, Kimberley Wetherill, a law professor focused on AI ethics, and Kate Ellingham, CEO of Economic Justice Australia, discuss the pitfalls of automated decision-making in government. They highlight the disastrous consequences of Robo-debt, advocating for stricter oversight and transparency in AI applications. The need for robust governance structures to protect vulnerable populations is emphasized, alongside lessons learned from previous failures in social security automation.

Rishi Nathwani, a defense barrister from Parnell's Barristers in Melbourne, delves into the shocking case of Erin Patterson, found guilty of poisoning her estranged husband's family. The discussion pivots around the intense jury deliberation and the critical question of Patterson's intent with the deadly mushrooms. Nathwani also highlights the legal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and the complexities of jury selection, particularly in high-profile trials laden with media attention, emphasizing the delicate balance between justice and public perception.

The jury in mushroom cook Erin Patterson’s triple murder trial has retired to deliberate the verdict, guilty or not guilty. But what happens in there behind closed doors? When they retire to the deliberation room, should they leave all of their personal beliefs and prejudices at the door? And is this even possible? How does it work? In this episode from our special series Inside the Jury Room which first aired in 2018 Damien Carrick sets out to find the answer.  

US President Donald Trump has praised a landmark Supreme Court ruling that struck down 'universal injunctions' issued by lower court judges, made in response to his executive order on birthright citizenship. What are the implications for numerous Trump administration policies blocked by court injunctions? And for the legal boundaries of presidential power?