A couple of interesting articles I stumbled across today that the lawyerish types (both professional and armchair) might be interested in: Firstly from Radio Australia:

Under the new laws, migration lawyers, instead of their clients, will be personally liable for the cost of cases that have no merit. Billing the prosecution for cases that have no merit sounds like a good idea, but I’m not sure if the lawyer should be billed or not. If the lawyer pressured their client into the lawsuit then the lawyer should definitely be slapped with the cost. However, if the lawyer was a good lawyer who acted in good faith and advised their client as accurately as they could about the chances of winning then it would seem quite unreasonable to slap the lawyer with the fine. I would hate to think that people wouldn’t be able to find a lawyer to take their case just because there was a possibility it would be thrown out as having no merit. Then again, how obviously invalid does a case have to be before a judge throws it out without listening to the arguments? And secondly, from the Financial Times, it appears that it is illegal (in the UK at least) to have unsafe sex with someone and not inform them of any STDs you may happen to have, but the jury must be asked to consider whether or not the victim consented to it (I’m not sure if “it” should be taken as the sex, the unsafe sex or contracting the disease). My interpretation of that may well be out though. The article is about how the original ruling that found him guilty was overturned because the jury should have been asked to consider “the issue of consent”. I’m not sure if that means the entire trial happens over again as if it had never happened or if “the issue of consent” is being sent back to trial. Anyone got any hints as to how this process works? References to Law and Order episodes I can watch to come up to speed on it are appreciated….