Valuing Inside Knowledge: Police Infiltration as a Problem for the Law of Evidence

It is well-known that undercover investigations influence and sometimes distort the crimes they seek to expose. This is the problem which the entrapment defense is designed to address. What has not yet been recognized, however, is that the investigator\u27s influence on crimes is also a problem of evidence. This Article notes that undercover policing can be used to prove crimes that the investigator influences (which I term contrived offenses ) as well as crimes that occur independently of the government\u27s intervention (what I call independent crimes ). The ease of documenting the former tempts investigators to forego the arduous task of proving the latter. Yet the same evidence that proves a contrived offense may also corroborate an independent crime. This Article argues that contrived offenses are at best proxies for the independent crimes which legitimate the investigation. And because of the investigator\u27s influence, contrived offenses are inherently flawed substitutes for independent crimes. Invoking best evidence principles, this Article argues that the rules of evidence should be reformed in ways that will motivate prosecutors to put evidence of contrived offenses to its best use: proving independent crimes

The Place of Covert Policing in Democratic Societies: An Empirical Study of the U.S. and Germany

My study of undercover policing explores the ways in which democratic legal systems change when they legalize highly contested police practices that have long been quietly tolerated and accorded minimal scrutiny. Undercover policing is a prime of example of such a practice. It has long been subject to remarkably little legislative oversight and systematic regulation in the United States and Western Europe. It exists in a twilight of legality—a necessary evil, but one inviting anxieties about its legitimacy and consonance with the rule of law. Under pressure from the European Court of Human Rights, Germany (along with other Western European countries) has attempted to regulate covert operations in a more systematic fashion. The German experience examined in my article suggests how difficult it is to tame and legitimate a constantly changing and normatively contested practice such as undercover policing. The article contrasts German attempts to create an explicit legal basis for this power –and a comprehensive regulatory system – with American willingness to leave covert practices largely unregulated. The article focuses on the consequences of these divergent approaches for the legitimacy of covert practices. German legal and administrative reforms succeeded in improving legitimacy along some dimensions while undermining it along others, and, indeed, introducing new bases on which the legitimacy of undercover police work is subject to challenge. In the United States, by contrast, law enforcement agencies have succeeded in defusing a variety of reform initiatives through internal reforms, with little legislative or judicial supervision. As a result, many problems of legitimacy persist – with little visibility. American challenges to the legitimacy of covert tactics now focus less on criminal cases than on the use of such tactics in domestic intelligence investigation. My analysis of German covert policing rests on 89 field interviews that I conducted between 2002 and 2004 with state and federal police officials, undercover agents, training and supervisory officials, control officers, prosecutors, and judges in fifteen of the sixteen German states. I also compared evidence from interviews with a variety of written sources, including ministry guidelines, training materials, prosecutors’ memoranda, judicial opinions, scholarly criticism, and news stories. The open-ended, qualitative field interviews are at the heart of the project. They help to uncover the principles animating otherwise shadowy German covert operations. And they illustrate the dilemmas inherent in the practices; the obstacles to reform; and the different tradeoffs which the American and German regulatory systems have made in securing the legitimacy of these practices

The Law Tech Clinic: Leading the way in Entrepreneurial Law Clinics

Globalisation, economic forces and technological advancements are changing the way law is practised. Clients are seeking innovative solutions to an increasingly broad range of legal challenges. They want greater connectivity and streamlined delivery of legal services. The rate of change has accelerated in response to remote working, with the digital maturity of legal firms advancing more rapidly than ever before, utilising technology such as electronic billing practices, digital mailrooms, e- discovery, digital document signing and workflow automation. Newly developed and deployed legal technology within the sector has increased demand for lawyers with the skills to adapt and thrive in a technological environment. Law firms favour graduates with a ‘technology mindset’ and aptitude to think beyond the traditional professional services model. The Monash University Faculty of Law, one of the leading law schools in Australia with a pioneering clinical program, has established a Law Tech Clinic (LTC). The LTC provides a unique opportunity for students to work on real client matters and receive end-to-end industry input to develop client-ready applications. This paper describes the LTC’s structure and how the clinic is designed to educate students on the changing demands of the legal industry, providing practical knowledge on legal technology usage to advance legal services. This paper outlines how the LTC enables students to develop professional and practical legal skills that will help them become successful entrepreneurial lawyers, adept at integrating technology with innovative legal services. Further, this paper demonstrates how the Monash Clinical Program, with a strong focus on best practice in clinical legal education, provides a perfect forum to run such a clinic. We demonstrate how students work with technological systems to assist industry partners, law firms and other organisations and provide accessible legal services to their clients.2 Finally, this paper highlights how the LTC educates students on technological advances in legal practice, equipping them with frameworks for the knowledge, skills and attributes to be technologically proficient future legal practitioners. Although this discussion is in the Australian context, it can also apply to other jurisdictions as the associated issues with legal technology and its effects on legal practice are occurring globally

Leadership curricula and assessment in Australian and New Zealand medical schools

Background: The Australian Medical Council, which accredits Australian medical schools, recommends medical leadership graduate outcomes be taught, assessed and accredited. In Australia and New Zealand (Australasia) there is a significant research gap and no national consensus on how to educate, assess, and evaluate leadership skills in medical professional entry degree/programs. This study aims to investigate the current curricula, assessment and evaluation of medical leadership in Australasian medical degrees, with particular focus on the roles and responsibilities of medical leadership teachers, frameworks used and competencies taught, methods of delivery, and barriers to teaching leadership. Methods: A self-administered cross-sectional survey was distributed to senior academics and/or heads or Deans of Australasian medical schools. Data for closed questions and ordinal data of each Likert scale response were described via frequency analysis. Content analysis was undertaken on free text responses and coded manually. Results: Sixteen of the 22 eligible (73%) medical degrees completed the full survey and 100% of those indicate that leadership is taught in their degree. In most degrees (11, 69%) leadership is taught as a common theme integrated throughout the curricula across several subjects. There is a variety of leadership competencies taught, with strengths being communication (100%), evidence based practice (100%), critical reflective practice (94%), self-management (81%), ethical decision making (81%), critical thinking and decision making (81%). Major gaps in teaching were financial management (20%), strategic planning (31%) and workforce planning (31%). The teaching methods used to deliver medical leadership within the curricula are diverse, with many degrees providing opportunities for leadership teaching for students outside the curricula. Most degrees (10, 59%) assess the leadership education, with one-third (6, 35%) evaluating it. Conclusions: Medical leadership competencies are taught in most degrees, but key leadership competencies are not being taught and there appears to be no continuous quality improvement process for leadership education. There is much more we can do as medical educators, academics and leaders to shape professional development of academics to teach medical leadership, and to agree on required leadership skills set for our students so they can proactively shape the future of the health care system