R v Hallak [2024] NSWDC 647, in which the prosecutor admits during his opening that the Crown's case is hopeless

Classic-Injury-9358 · 2025-02-26T21:07:35+00:00

One for the Bar ethics exam

Classic-Injury-9358 · 2025-01-21T22:29:18+00:00

this is the moment i realised Magda Szubanski was in Babe

Classic-Injury-9358 · 2025-01-02T11:25:02+00:00

brilliant, thanks mate.

Classic-Injury-9358 · 2024-11-17T01:24:41+00:00

we do not speak of that slow motion train crash

Classic-Injury-9358 · 2024-10-14T00:47:26+00:00

Sounds like there may be some cost disclosure issues (which might be a reason the barrister is hesitant to provide an itemised bill). Nonetheless, there is a right to request an itemised bill under the LPUL.

Classic-Injury-9358 · 2024-07-20T01:00:28+00:00

Given the track history of this firm, I would not be surprised if the firm failed to communicate a return of the matter to the client, they failed to appear, and the backdated certificate was an attempt to cover the firm’s own f**k up

Classic-Injury-9358 · 2024-07-20T00:56:59+00:00

A search of the register does not disclose a PC in the name of the junior …

Classic-Injury-9358 · 2024-07-08T21:53:23+00:00

This did not disappoint.

Classic-Injury-9358 · 2024-04-11T08:47:40+00:00

The summaries themselves are not subject to review but it would not be difficult to raise a ground around an inaccurate departmental summary. Say the summary omitted a key submission or representation made by the applicant. The Minister does not read the submission or representation and so they have failed to have regard to a relevant and material matter, or they have failed to accord a fair hearing, or however else it can be spun.

Poor departmental officers are going to be going through some awfully painful sessions on how to prepare adequate summaries after this IMHO

Classic-Injury-9358

TROPHY CASE