Court-provided trial technology: efficiency and fairness for criminal trials

In Australia, trials conducted as 'electronic trials' have ordinarily run with the assistance of commercial service providers, with the associated costs being borne by the parties. However, an innovative approach has been taken by the courts in Queensland. In October 2007 Queensland became the first Australian jurisdiction to develop its own court-provided technology, to facilitate the conduct of an electronic trial. This technology was first used in the conduct of civil trials. The use of the technology in the civil sphere highlighted its benefits and, more significantly, demonstrated the potential to achieve much greater efficiencies. The Queensland courts have now gone further, using the court-provided technology in the high proffle criminal trial of R v Hargraves, Hargraves and Stoten, in which the three accused were tried for conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth of Australia of about $3.7 million in tax. This paper explains the technology employed in this case and reports on the perspectives of all of the participants in the process. The representatives for all parties involved in this trial acknowledged, without reservation, that the use of the technology at trial produced considerable overall efficiencies and costs savings. The experience in this trial also demonstrates that the benefits of trial technology for the criminal justice process are greater than those for civil litigation. It shows that, when skilfully employed, trial technology presents opportunities to enhance the fairness of trials for accused persons. The paper urges governments, courts and the judiciary in all jurisdictions to continue their efforts to promote change, and to introduce mechanisms to facilitate more broadly a shift from the entrenched paper-based approach to both criminal and civil procedure to one which embraces more broadly the enormous benefits trial technology has to offer

Accountability and efficiency and the decision of whether to appoint the incumbent audit firm to provide non-audit services

not availabl

The Market for Preclusion in Merger Litigation

The recent finding that corporate litigation involving Delaware companies very often takes place outside of Delaware has disturbed the long-settled understanding of how merger litigation works. With many, even most, cases being filed and ultimately resolved outside of Delaware, commentators warn that the trend is a threat to shareholders, to Delaware, and to the integrity of corporate law generally. Although the out-of-Delaware trend suggests that litigants are seeking to use the procedural rules of other jurisdictions to their advantage, we argue that the result need not threaten the interests of any of the stakeholders in deal litigation. We reframe the process of resolving merger litigation as a market for preclusion, in which plaintiffs seek to sell and defendants seek to buy an important element of transactional certainty. Moreover, this market has the potential to efficiently process and price shareholder complaints while also providing benefits to Delaware and to corporate law more generally. We are not blind to reality, however, and also address how a well-functioning market for preclusion can be distorted by the opportunistic conduct of plaintiffs’ and defense attorneys alike. Greater judicial oversight is necessary to preserve the benefits of this market while preventing the distortions brought on through opportunistic conduct. In order to make this a reality, however, judges in different courts must have a means of communicating and coordinating across state lines. We therefore offer a theory of horizontal comity in which judges build trust and cooperation through communication across jurisdictional boundaries. We use this theory to suggest a set of concrete policy proposals designed to provide for a more efficient market for preclusion

Is the Quest for Corporate Responsibility a Wild Goose Chase? The Story of Lovenheim v. Iroquois Brands, Ltd.

Peter Lovenheim owned a small stake in Iroquois Brands, Ltd (Iroquois). He proposed that the corporation discontinue its distribution of one product, pâté de foie gras, because he objected to the treatment of the geese necessary to the production of the product. Under federal regulations, Iroquois was required to include such proposals in the proxy materials it sent out in advance of its annual shareholder meeting unless an exception applied. Iroquois Brands thought it could exclude the proposal because the product in question constituted a trivial part of its business. Lovenheim went to the District Court seeking an order requiring Iroquois Brands to distribute his proposal, and the District Court granted Lovenheim the relief he sought. In teaching the case in my Business Associations course, I have often wondered how Peter Lovenheim came to make his proposal and whether such whether such proposals relating to social or ethical issues (social proposals) are a proper use of the shareholder proposal mechanism. The District Court recognized an extremely broad right of shareholders to bring social proposals. The decision to do so makes more sense when the case is situated in its various historical contexts, including the history of the governing regulations and the case law that informed the District Court’s opinion. The story of Lovenheim contains its share of surprises. First, Lovenheim was, in many ways, the ideal shareholder proponent. He bought Iroquois stock as an investment, but he also had certain ideas about the nature of the company. He believed in the company, and he did not think that distributing pâté de foie gras was consistent with his idea of the company. He was confident that other shareholders would feel the same way. Second, although Lovenheim’s proposal ultimately did not succeed with Iroquois’ shareholders, the company did discontinue the product. Lovenheim thus considered his proposal a success, and for several years after the case was decided, he teamed up with like-minded people to use the shareholder proposal mechanism to pressure corporations to adopt policies promoting the humane treatment of animals. The story of Lovenheim thus illustrates the extra-legal consequences of shareholder activism. After a history of the relevant SEC regulations and their fates in the courts, the Article presents the complete narrative of the Lovenheim case, providing details that are not captured in the decision or in the limited secondary literature relating to the case. It explains the legal landscape and why the Lovenheim case was such a groundbreaking case. In the final section, the Article explains why the case has remained good law in the 25 years since it was decided and why corporations are not motivated to pressure the SEC to limit shareholders’ rights to bring social proposals

Parole In The Penal System: Towards A Relational Theory Of Penality

This thesis aims to develop a theoretical model which explains how the penal realm functions qua system. A second aim is to use this model to challenge a number of contemporary theories of penal transformation (as advanced in the works of Malcolm Feeley and Jonathan Simon, David Garland and Tony Bottoms). Using empirical evidence from the Scottish Parole System, the argument is developed over the course of three case studies, each of which explores a different dimension of systemic functioning: the development of penal policy, the implementation of penal policy; and the decision-making practices of agents working within the system. The findings from the case studies suggest that the penal system functions in a manner akin to an eco-system in which there is a high level of interdependency and struggles for power and control between key sites in the system. The relative balance of power between these sites is determined by both extra and intra-systemic processes. The nature of these processes, in turn, indicates that penal transformation is more contingent and nuanced than contemporary theories would suggest. Transformation is most likely to occur under conditions of extra or intra-systemic strain; where tensions between the cultural practices of the system and the physical and conceptual space within which it is located, become too great to be sustained

"And [they] built a crooked h[arbour]" - the Schrems ruling and what it means for the future of data transfers between the EU and US

ABSTRACT: Safe Harbour (Henceforth, SH) has been the main enabler of EU-US personal data transfers since Decision 2000/520/EC came into force. Initially, Safe Harbour was seen as an innovative solution to a difficult problem. However, the problems the agreement was created to solve were never remedied. Thus, it did not come as a surprise that the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter, CJEU), in Case C-362/14 (the Schrems ruling), deemed the agreement invalid. In the story “And he built a crooked house”, the infamous ‘crooked house’, designed by Robert A. Heinlein’s character Quintus Teal, mirrors SH’s flawed design. It also exemplifies the fact that great innovations can fail if not thought through carefully. Although the Schrems ruling’s scope does not go beyond Decision 2000/520/EC, it will force European Data Protection Agencies to look deeper into alternative data transfer mechanisms and possibly, consider transfers to jurisdictions other than the US. Furthermore, this decision highlights the fact that if any progress on this front is going to be made going forward regarding personal data transfers, any solution(s) would have to be made at a global level. This paper will provide an overview of the implications of the CJEU ruling on data transfers between the EU and the US going forward.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

“And [they] built a crooked h[arbour]” – the Schrems ruling and what it means for the future of data transfers between the EU and US

Safe Harbour (Henceforth, SH) has been the main enabler of EU-US personal data transfers since Decision 2000/520/EC came into force. Initially, Safe Harbour was seen as an innovative solution to a difficult problem. However, the problems the agreement was created to solve were never remedied. Thus, it did not come as a surprise that the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter, CJEU), in Case C-362/14 (the Schrems ruling), deemed the agreement invalid. In the story “And he built a crooked house”, the infamous ‘crooked house’, designed by Robert A. Heinlein’s character Quintus Teal, mirrors SH’s flawed design. It also exemplifies the fact that great innovations can fail if not thought through carefully. Although the Schrems ruling’s scope does not go beyond Decision 2000/520/EC, it will force European Data Protection Agencies to look deeper into alternative data transfer mechanisms and possibly, consider transfers to jurisdictions other than the US. Furthermore, this decision highlights the fact that if any progress on this front is going to be made going forward regarding personal data transfers, any solution(s) would have to be made at a global level. This paper will provide an overview of the implications of the CJEU ruling on data transfers between the EU and the US going forward

A Trust-Based Adaptive Access Control Model for Wireless Sensor Networks

Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) have recently attracted much interest in the research community because of their wide range of applications. One emerging application for WSNs involves their use in healthcare where they are generally termed Wireless Medical Sensor Networks (WMSNs). In a hospital, fitting patients with tiny, wearable, wireless vital sign sensors would allow doctors, nurses and others to continuously monitor the state of those in their care. In the healthcare industry, patients are expected to be treated in reasonable time and any loss in data availability can result in further decline in the patient’s condition or can even lead to death. Therefore, the availability of data is more important than security concerns. The overwhelming priority is to take care of the patient, but the privacy and confidentiality of that patient’s medical records cannot be neglected. In current healthcare applications, there are many problems concerning security policy violations such as unauthorised denial of use, unauthorised information modification and unauthorised information release of medical data in the real world environment. Current WSN access control models used the traditional Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) or cryptographic methods for data access control but the systems still need to predefine attributes, roles and policies before deployment. It is, however, difficult to determine in advance all the possible needs for access in real world applications because there may be unanticipated situations at any time. This research proceeds to study possible approaches to address the above issues and to develop a new access control model to fill the gaps in work done by the WSN research community. Firstly, the adaptive access control model is proposed and developed based on the concept of discretionary overriding to address the data availability issue. In the healthcare industry, there are many problems concerning unauthorised information release. So, we extended the adaptive access control model with a prevention and detection mechanism to detect security policy violations, and added the concept of obligation to take a course of action when a restricted access is granted or denied. However, this approach does not consider privacy of patients’ information because data availability is prioritised. To address the conflict between data availability and data privacy, this research proposed the Trust-based Adaptive Access Control (TBA2C) model that integrates the concept of trust into the previous model. A simple user behaviour trust model is developed to calculate the behaviour trust value which measures the trustworthiness of the users and that is used as one of the defined thresholds to override access policy for data availability purpose, but the framework of the TBA2C model can be adapted with other trust models in the research community. The trust model can also protect data privacy because only a user who satisfies the relevant trust threshold can get restricted access in emergency and unanticipated situations. Moreover, the introduction of trust values in the enforcement of authorisation decisions can detect abnormal data access even from authorised users. Ponder2 is used to develop the TBA2C model gradually, starting from a simple access control model to the full TBA2C. In Ponder2, a Self-Managed Cell (SMC) simulates a sensor node with the TBA2C engine inside it. Additionally, to enable a full comparison with the proposed TBA2C model, the Break-The-Glass Role Based Access Control (BTGRBAC) model is redesigned and developed in the same platform (Ponder2). The proposed TBA2C model is the first to realise a flexible access control engine and to address the conflict between data availability and data privacy by combining the concepts of discretionary overriding, the user behaviour trust model, and the prevention and detection mechanism