Monday, July 04, 2011

QLD Victims of Crime

Queensland has a (relatively) new scheme for compensating victims of crime. Unless corresponding schemes in Victoria and NSW, the QLD scheme isn’t so much compensation as reimbursement. To quote from their official guide:

The Queensland Government provides financial assistance to eligible victims of crime to pay for or reimburse the costs of goods and services you need as a victim to recover from the effects of a violent crime.

If you were the victim of an act of violence that happened on or after 1 December 2009, you can obtain your financial assistance without first having to go to court. If the act of violence happened before 1 December 2009, you will not be able to bring a claim until:

•The offender is convicted in the District/Supreme Court; or
•You’re notified that the offender cannot be convicted.


Violent Crime

The “violent crime” has to have occurred in QLD and must have resulted in your suffering physical or psychological injury.

A violent crime is an act of violence that causes injury to at least one person. It includes:

•Assault
•Sexual assault/rape
•Grievous bodily harm
•Domestic/family violence
•Kidnapping/deprivation of liberty
•Stalking
•Murder/manslaughter
•Death caused by dangerous driving.


Injury

This basically refers to any of the following:

•Disease
•Intellectual impairment
•Mental illness/disorder
•Bodily harm
•Adverse impacts arising from sexual assault
•A combination of these injuries, including resulting pregnancy.



Delicious Bookmark this on Delicious Digg! Get Flocked

The Best Interests of the Child

Australian family law is governed by federal legislation called the Family Law Act, enacted in 1975. This legislation sets out how children of a relationship are to be looked after by their parents and how disputes are to be resolved should the relationship break up.

The basic rule is that any court making orders under the FLA must ensure that the best interests of the child are met. Section 60CA states that:

... a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.


The Objects

Section 60B(1) sets out how the objects of FLA dealing with the best interests of the child are to be met. Four objects are set out:

•Ensuring children can benefit from both parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives;

•Protecting children from physical or psychological harm, from abuse, neglect or family violence;

•Making sure children get adequate/proper parenting to help them achieve full potential; and

•Making sure parents meet duties and responsibilities re care welfare and development of children.


The Principles

Section 60B(2) sets out five principles underlying these objects. These principles apply unless where they are contrary to the child's best interests. The principles are:

•Children have the right to know and be cared for by both parents. This applies regardless of whether parents are married, separated, have never married and have never lived together.

•Children have the right to spend time with and communicate with both parents on a regular basis. Children also have this right when it comes to other people significant to their care and welfare e.g. grandparents and other relatives.

•Parents have joint duties regarding care, welfare and development of children.

•Parents should agree on their children’s future parenting.

•Children have the right to enjoy their culture, including with people who share that culture.


Special Consideration for ATSI Children

When it comes to culture, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children hace special rights which recognise their unique cultures. Section 60B(3) states that an ATSI child's right to enjoy his/her ATSI culture includes the right to maintain a connection with that culture. It also includes the right to have any necessary support and encouragement to explore and develope a positive appreciation of that culture.

Delicious Bookmark this on Delicious Digg! Get Flocked

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

CRIKEY: Those who judge judges, lawyers need a lesson in depression


Here’s a great way to improve the quality of lawyers in Australia. Ensure that lawyers who want to renew their licences after five years of practice are made to sit through a rigorous psychological and psychiatric examination. They should also provide copies of all medical records.

Why? Lawyers are officers of the court. Some go on to become magistrates and judges. We need our legal profession to consist solely of stable, sane and depression-free individuals. We also need world peace, an end to all poverty and a Prime Minister worth voting for.

Two NSW magistrates have had to front up before the Parliament and explain to a bunch of politicians why their mental illness should not render them unfit to perform their duties. One wonders how many of the honourable members listening have (or should have) appointments with psychiatrists pencilled in their diaries.

This is the same Parliament whose numbers once included an opposition leader whose unfortunate gaffe led to a suicide attempt and admission to a psychiatric clinic. This traumatic roller-coaster ride has not stopped John Brogden from becoming chief executive of the Financial Services Council.

Brogden’s depression, a condition he shares with one in five of his countrymen and women, is not deemed by the financial services industry to render him incapacitated to do his job of overseeing the investment of about $1.4 trillion through superannuation, funds management and life insurance organisations. Yet for some reason, the Judicial Commission in its wisdom has decided that magistrate Brian Maloney is incapacitated after being diagnosed with bipolar II, an illness known to be very treatable with standard psychopharmacological treatments.

With respect, those who judge our judges and lawyers should understand that law is one of those professions very conducive to depression in its practitioners. Perhaps a good way to describe a lawyer’s job is to always assume the worst scenarios are going to happen and then protect his or her client from each of them. The best lawyers are almost always the ultimate pessimists. Too much positive thinking is dangerous in the legal game.

Life is especially tough for many small operators whose sources of work are drying out or legislated out of existence. These are often the lawyers prepared to do low-paying legal aid work for average punters. These are the lawyers who would struggle to pay their own hourly rate let alone the fees of the average private psychiatrist.

As magistrate Maloney told the NSW Parliament: “Interestingly, researchers have found that 40% of law students, 20% of barristers and 33% of solicitors have a mental illness. It is from this demographic that judicial officers are drawn. In the past 12 months three barristers have sadly taken their own lives. In recent years, two judges.”

So much of our criminal and civil justice system is carried out by the magistrates courts — simple traffic matters, drink-driving offences, family violence orders, debts and much more. A huge number of unrepresented persons, punters who can’t afford a lawyer and whose matter doesn’t come within legal aid guidelines, are seen by magistrates who generally bend over backwards to ensure no party is unfairly dealt with.

We need magistrates who have empathy and genuine life experience. That includes the experience of the large number of people suffering from mental illnesses who are disproportionately represented in our prisons, as parent-litigants in child protection cases and in so much of the business that comes before magistrates courts.

You’d think having a magistrate on the bench who is successfully managing mental illness would be an asset to the court. In short, if a magistrate is readily deemed incapacitated because of depression or bipolar disorder, the entire court system is potentially put at risk. And that’s enough to make anyone sick.

Words © 2011 Irfan Yusuf



Delicious Bookmark this on Delicious Digg! Get Flocked

Monday, June 20, 2011

On Glorious Mackay ...

Check out this awesome website. And check out this amazing scene.


Some of you may find it hard to imagine how anyone could resist working in such an environment. And just thinking about it makes me wonder why the hell I left the place.

One of the fringe benefits of working in the community legal sector is that you actually get the time to walk outside your office, indeed to drive away from your office, at around 5:30pm in time to enjoy a place like this. Better still, you feel good about yourself because you've actually helped people who simply cannot afford to go anywhere else.

In October 2009, after I'd finished writing and publishing and promoting my book, I had made a conscious decision not to go back to private practice in the big smoke. Community sector law proved a little less generous on my bank balance, but the benefits as far as lifestyle have been superb. It has also allowed me to see and live in parts of Australia I never expected to visit even on holidays.

Surviving on $65,000 per year for putting your unrestricted practising certificate on the line may not sound like a terribly good return on a 6 year study and decade work investment. Still, if it means sitting down on a hilltop cafe overlooking this ...


... whilst avoiding the inevitable second divorce and/or impending nervous breakdown of many a partner of a metropolitan law firm, then surely the pay cut is worth it.

Stupid me stayed in this gorgeous place only 10 months. At the time I regarded Mackay as a cultural wasteland, a veritable Boganville. And yes, in some ways it truly was.


But one of the great things about Mackay was its proximity to Airlie Beach and the Whitsundays, where the view was often even more spectacular.


It was a truly pleasurable 10 months. Among the areas of QLD law I managed to discover were:

a. A mega-tribunal that dealt with just about every jurisdiction under the planet. And calling itself QCAT. Pretty funky name.

b. The horrors of the QLD child protection system, one where sadly indigenous kids are over represented.

c. The rather scary prospect of being slapped with a "peace and good behaviour order" if I wasn't nice to my neighbours.

d. The amazing work done by an army of underpaid community and social workers, disability advocates and legal aid lawyers (though they got paid much more than we at the community legal centre did).

This isn't the kind of law I even knew existed in the days when I was busy working ridiculous hours defending employers who refused to dismiss their workers properly and/or pay award entitlements.

Words & Photos © 2011 Irfan Yusuf

Delicious Bookmark this on Delicious Digg! Get Flocked

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Notes on Property Settlements

[01] The term property in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is defined very broadly. In includes assets owned individually, jointly or by a family company/trust. It also includes property once owned but recently disposed of.

[02] From 1 March 2009, de facto partners can use the Family Law Act to resolve their property disputes.

[03] Section 80 FLA sets out possible orders the Court can make on property and spousal maintenance. The Court can only make orders within the list.

[04] Property disputes involving married parties can be settled under the FLA at anytime before divorce. They can also be settled at anytime upto 12 months after a final divorce. That means the application must be filed within 12 months of the divorce.

[05] A formerly married person who failed to lodge his or her application within the 12 month post-divorce period will have to obtain permission from the Court before lodging the claim. They will have to show good reasons for not lodging earlier.

[06] De facto (including same-sex) partners must lodge their property and/or spousal maintenance application within two (2) years of the relationship ending.


DeliciousBookmark this on Delicious
Digg!Get Flocked

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Profile in NSW Law Society Journal ...

Media mentions: Irfan Yusuf
Sole practitioner
Sydney Lawyers


The story: I was contacted by a 2GB researcher to talk about Haron, a self-styled Muslim cleric currently before the courts. The mainstream media didn't precisely identify the charge, but it's apparently to do with harassing letters to families of Australian soldiers, particularly ones still in Afghanistan, and widows of soldiers.

Why did the media come to you? I suspect they picked me because the host had been involved in defamation litigation against some person they usually talk to, and they'd used stuff I'd written in evidence against that usual spokesman. So they expected me to be friendly, or their way inclined. I wasn't unfriendly, but I didn't play along.

Your background: I've done stints in law offices in government and private practice. Now I do mostly workplace issues. I also write comment in the mainstream and online media, and am the author of Once Were Radicals, which is a memoir, but mostly about young kids of Muslim heritage in Australia.

Your reflections: People see my name and the word lawyer and think lawyers are trained to spin, and so they make assumptions about who and what I am. Community advocacy isn't my favourite role, and I've taken it on only because others I see were doing such a bad job, in Sydney anyway. Usually, when some moron from within the religious establishment, or deemed to be, says something stupid, those who do the talking are middle to older aged men who have very poor English skills and almost no understanding of the broader culture and community.

How did the media treat the case? The initial researcher was sensible - she wanted to find out who this fellow is, and whether he has any religious qualifications or representative credentials. I asked if she'd approached anyone else and she said I was the first person she'd rung. On air, the host asked me why no one in 'your community' stands up and condemns this guy, and why did we have to go to so much effort to find you, and does the conspiracy of silence mean he represents what 'your people' really think? 300,000 Aussie Muslims have otherwise never heard of this guy. Fringe Muslim sheiks say ridiculous things. Why give them the attention they don't get from other Muslims?

Any tips for dealing with the media? Half the issue is to know what's worth talking about, and who's worth talking to. Not every microphone or camera is worth talking to. It's like if someone bowls a ball to you in cricket, you sometimes let it go through to the keeper. If it's a one-off, and you've never heard of the journalist before, look them up and find out what they're like. It's also a good idea to build up relationships and have an experienced journalist as a sounding board, to ask how they would respond.

Published in the December 2009 edition of the Law Society Journal.


Delicious
Bookmark this on Delicious

Digg!

Get Flocked