Can the Common Law Adjudicate Historical Suffering?

UTSePress Research/Manakin Repository

Search UTSePress Research


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Van Rijswijk, Honni en_US
dc.contributor.author Anthony, Thalia en_US
dc.contributor.editor en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2014-04-03T01:25:59Z
dc.date.available 2014-04-03T01:25:59Z
dc.date.issued 2012 en_US
dc.identifier 2012000887 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Van Rijswijk, Honni and Anthony, Thalia 2012, 'Can the Common Law Adjudicate Historical Suffering?', Melbourne University Law Review, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 618-655. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0025-8938 en_US
dc.identifier.other C1 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10453/23348
dc.description.abstract The case of South Australia v Lampard-Trevorrow opens up key questions about the capacity and willingness of the common law to adjudicate past acts of the state. This article considers the significance of the appeal decision by examining what distinguishes the case from past, unsuccessful claims and considers its implications for future claimants from the Stolen Generations. In addition, we consider what the case means in terms of the law's acceptance of a practice of historical and evidential interpretation that is different from previous cases, and how this is particularly important regarding the issue of parental consent. We argue that the role and interpretation of consent have broad ramifications for law's potential to adjudicate responsibility for historical harms. We also argue that the findings in relation to false imprisonment and fiduciary duty limit the potential of the Trevorrow cases. In particular, we examine, and lament, the Full Court's more limited reading of false imprisonment in contrast to the trial judgment. en_US
dc.language en_US
dc.publisher Melbourne University Law Review Association en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon en_US
dc.title Can the Common Law Adjudicate Historical Suffering? en_US
dc.parent Melbourne University Law Review en_US
dc.journal.volume 36 en_US
dc.journal.number 2 en_US
dc.publocation Melbourne, Australia en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 618 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 655 en_US
dc.cauo.name LAW.Faculty of law en_US
dc.conference Verified OK en_US
dc.for 180100 en_US
dc.personcode 108952 en_US
dc.personcode 108953 en_US
dc.percentage 100 en_US
dc.classification.name Law en_US
dc.classification.type FOR-08 en_US
dc.edition en_US
dc.custom en_US
dc.date.activity en_US
dc.location.activity en_US
dc.description.keywords NA en_US
dc.staffid 108953 en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record