Podcasts about law reform commission

Justice Albie Sachs joins Lester Kiewit to discuss the Law Reform Commission's proposal to repeal apartheid-era laws and their impact on advancing South Africa's democracy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Richard Barrett, Law Reform Commission, on a new report highlighting the need for a regulatory framework for safeguarding at-risk adults.

On this episode of The Callover, we have the Honourable Fleur Kingham to discuss her life in the law, her most recent appointment as Chair of the Queensland Law Reform Commission, and the criminal defences review that is currently underway. Chair Kingham's extensive contributions to the legal community in Queensland are quite remarkable. She graduated from law at the University of Queensland in 1982 and went on to become a founding member of the Women's Legal Service in Queensland and the Arts Law Centre of Queensland.  She has been a barrister, university lecturer, mediator and facilitator, the first deputy president of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, a Judge of the Queensland District Court, the Children's Court of Queensland and the Planning and Environment Court and the President of the Land Court.  Most recently, in April 2023, she was appointed Chair of the Queensland Law Reform Commission. To contact the QLRC or find any of the resources referred to by Chair Kingham throughout the interview, visit: https://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ua fautuaina e le Komisi e toe iloiloina tulafono, le Law Reform Commission, le tatau ona ave'esea le aia sa umia e lotu ma Ekalesia e te'ena ai faia'oga ma tamaiti a'oga e tusa ai ma a latou tala'iga ma talitonuga.

Today's episode features Executive Director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Liam Herrick.  Liam and Sarah discuss the history of the ICCL and its place in the development of human rights and social justice, not only in Ireland, but globally.  They look at the ‘Enforce' unit within the ICCL which aims to challenge the ‘tech threat' posed to democracy and human rights.  Liam Herrick is the Executive Director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. Liam was appointed in November 2016. Prior to his appointment, he was the Advisor to President Michael D. Higgins. Liam was Executive Director of the Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) between 2007 and 2014. He has also worked as the first Head of Legislation and Policy at the former Irish Human Rights Commission, with the Law Reform Commission and at the Department of Foreign Affairs. He is a former member of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) and the Minister for Justice and Equality's Strategic Review Group on Penal Policy. Liam is a sought-after commentator and appears regularly before parliamentary committees and in the media.   Liam says “I have worked in human rights for most of the last 20 years. I believe that fighting for human rights protections in law and in policy can make a real difference to peoples' lives and to the type of society we live in. “

GUEST OVERVIEW: Professor Augusto Zimmermann is a former Law Reform Commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (2012-2017) and a former Associate Dean (Research) and Postgraduate Research Director at Murdoch University's School of Law. He is also the Founder and President of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA), a former Vice-President of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy, an Elected Fellow at the International Academy for the Study of the Jurisprudence of the Family (IASJF) and Editor-in-Chief of the Western Australian Jurist law journal. A prolific writer and author of numerous articles and academic books, Professor Zimmermann is generally recognised as a fierce advocate for freedom of speech and the Rule of Law.

Donncha O'Connell, Professor of Law at University of Galway and Former Member of the Law Reform Commission.

It's going to be an especially bumpy six months for religious freedom issues in New South Wales..Legalised Euthanasia will be rolled out in just a few weeks. But what about faith based aged care institutions, where organizations and staff are conscientious objectors to euthanasia? Then there's the Law Reform Commission inquiry into religious schooling and whether the religious exemptions to anti discrimination law should be removed. And the debate over conversion therapy will come to a head in the parliament. Monica Doumit is Director of Public Affairs and Engagement for the Catholic Church in Sydney… and was one of the presenters at the Freedom for Faith Conference in Sydney. Mike Southon is executive director of Freedom for Faith http://www.thepastorsheart.net/podcast/euthanasia-discrimination-conversion Support the show--To make a one off contribution to support The Pastor's Heart's ministry go to this link, or to become a regular Patreon supporter click here.

The Law Reform Commission is taking a look at the country's adverse possession rules. The Public Accounts Committee met today – for hearing on budgeting, financial management and reporting An application to clear land along West Bay Road to be used as a temporary laydown yard for material storage is given the greenlight by the Central Planning Authority. Cayman's hurricane shelters get a quick inspection by the country's new governor.  The National Roads Authority is urging residents and visitors to take care on the roads this Hurricane Season. Jamara Bodden is the first recipient of the Addison Kelly Memorial Scholarship --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rcnews/message

GUEST OVERVIEW: Rebekah Barnett is an independent journalist from Western Australia. She holds a BA in Communications, and is a volunteer interviewer for Jab Injuries Australia.  Instagram: @dystopiandownunder Twitter: @dystopian_DU   GUEST OVERVIEW: Rachael is the Chief Executive Officer of Women's Forum Australia. She is also an Adjunct Lecturer in the School of Law at the University of Notre Dame Australia. She previously worked with the Law Reform Commission in Samoa to bring about legislative reform to improve the lives of Samoan women and girls and has worked and volunteered in various legal and human rights related roles. Rachael holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of Auckland and a Master of Bioethics and Health Law from the University of Otago. Twitter: @RachaelWongAus

Life, Culture and Current Events from a Biblical perspective.Help Vision to keep 'Connecting Faith to Life': https://vision.org.au/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We’re checking this week’s political agenda with the ACL.Help Vision to keep 'Connecting Faith to Life': https://vision.org.au/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kulja is away again this week, while Dylan talks infrastructure and planning with Dave Nichols in the lead up to the State Election. Uluru Youth Dialogue Co-Chair, Bridget Cama discusses the History Is Calling education campaign on voice to parliament. Chair of the VLRC, the Honourable Tony North QC, reviews the findings and recommendations from the Victorian Law Reform Commission's final report into stalking and Andreea S. Claude, Senior Lecturer in Linguistics at the University of Waikato, New Zealand explores the Plain Language bill and plans to improve Government and Public Sector communications. 

Law Reform Commission Hands Over Child Pornography and Other Cases To Minister of Justice by Radio Islam

Frank Clarke, senior counsel and former Chief Justice, joins the podcast to discuss the legal system after his term in office. Fiona Carroll of the Law Reform Commission explains why the Law Reform Commission is seeking to revoke several historical proclamations. Plus: when is a window not a window? A court case taken by developer Johnny Ronan's real estate group in connection with Dublin's Bewley's cafe and its Harry Clarke windows is explored. Law on Trial is sponsored by EY Ireland.

In this episode, we talk about our rights under both common law and the constitution and pose questions to Dr Zimmermann about how on earth all of the draconian pandemic restrictions and medical tyranny is even lawful.Dr Zimmermann is Head of Law and Professor at Sheridan College in Perth, Western Australia, and Professor of Law (adjunct) at the University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney campus. In addition, Dr Zimmermann is a former Law Reform Commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (2012–2017). He has also served as Director of Postgraduate Research (2011–2012 and 2015–2017) and Associate Dean, Research (2010–2012) at Murdoch University School of Law. During his time at Murdoch University, Dr Zimmermann was awarded the 2012 Vice Chancellor's Award for Excellence in Research. He is also President of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA), the Editor-in-Chief of the Western Australian Jurist law journal, and the author of numerous articles and books.The podcast is now powered by The Good Sauce conservative news site which can be found at goodsauce.news More podcast episodes from Conservative One can be found at www.georgechristensen.com.au/podcast

The statistics of how many victims even report sexual abuse, let alone get a conviction in the courts, are depressingly low. But how to improve the system? The Victorian Law Reform Commission is currently reviewing the process and will make its recommendations to the Victorian A-G in August, but there are other examples both in Australia and overseas that we can look to in order to give victims a supported space to tell their stories as well as making structural changes to institutions.

Any new legislation introduced that would put a cap on personal injury insurance claims could be open to a constitutional challenge. That’s according to a new report released this morning from the Law Reform Commission. Pat McDonagh, CEO of Supermacs has long championed the need for insurance reform in Ireland and he joined us on the show with reaction. Listen and subscribe to Newstalk Breakfast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.     Download, listen and subscribe on the Newstalk App.    You can also listen to Newstalk live on newstalk.com or on Alexa, by adding the Newstalk skill and asking: 'Alexa, play Newstalk'.

Tom O Malley, law lecturer and barrister who is also a member of the Law Reform Commission, discusses a new report by the Commission on the use of suspended sentences by judges.

The draft legislation has been referred to the state’s Law Reform Commission, with Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk citing the “complex” and “deeply personal” nature of the issue as the reason behind the decision. - Παραπέμφθηκε στην αρμόδια Επιτροπή Αναθεώρησης Νόμων της πολιτείας για γνωμοδότηση, λόγω της «πολυπλοκότητας» του ζητήματος, είπε η πολιτειακή πρωθυπουργός Αναστάσια Παλασέι.

Ashley Avery is executive director of Coverdale Courtwork Society, a non profit organization that supports women, girls, trans, non-binary and Two-Spirit persons affected by the criminal justice system. Before joinging Coverdale, she worked in the Mental Health field in Toronto, ON and then in Halifax, NS in facilities supporting women experiencing homelessness and women transitioning from prison to the community. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Women's Studies from Mount Saint Vincent University. Ashley has completed numerous trainings and certifications in the areas of Mental Health, Trauma Informed Practice and Counselling. She is involved in SSHRC funded research that is studying the causes and consequences of breaching court orders for women in the criminal justice system in Nova Scotia. She has also worked supporting the transformation of the Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia to the new Access to Justice & Law Reform Institute of Nova Scotia. In addition to these roles, is a feminist writer, poet and advocate living in KJIPUKTUK (Halifax). She is a former member of the Hali Slam team and a competitor at the 2017 Canadian Festival of Spoken Word. In preparation for this interview, students read John McKendy’s 2006 article "I’m very careful about that: narrative and agency of men in prison." This interview is the first recorded online rather than in the classroom due to social distancing measures taken in light of the Covid-19 Pandemic. The quality of the recording is likely to be compromised somewhat by this situation. Reference McKendy, J. (2006). I’m very careful about that: narrative and agency of men in prison, Discourse & Society, 17(4): 473-502.

Unlike other states, it's common for victims of crime to give evidence at a Victorian committal hearing. The state's Law Reform Commission is currently considering how well this system works. While victim advocates want big changes, defence lawyers say committals are an important filter.

[This is the text of a talk I gave to the Irish Law Reform Commission Annual Conference in Dublin on the 13th of November 2018. You can listen to an audio version of this lecture here or using the embedded player above.]In the mid-19th century, a set of laws were created to address the menace that newly-invented automobiles and locomotives posed to other road users. One of the first such laws was the English The Locomotive Act 1865, which subsequently became known as the ‘Red Flag Act’. Under this act, any user of a self-propelled vehicle had to ensure that at least two people were employed to manage the vehicle and that one of these persons:“while any locomotive is in motion, shall precede such locomotive on foot by not less than sixty yards, and shall carry a red flag constantly displayed, and shall warn the riders and drivers of horses of the approach of such locomotives…”The motive behind this law was commendable. Automobiles did pose a new threat to other, more vulnerable, road users. But to modern eyes the law was also, clearly, ridiculous. To suggest that every car should be preceded by a pedestrian waving a red flag would seem to defeat the point of having a car: the whole idea is that it is faster and more efficient than walking. The ridiculous nature of the law eventually became apparent to its creators and all such laws were repealed in the 1890s, approximately 30 years after their introduction.[1]The story of the Red Flag laws shows that legal systems often get new and emerging technologies badly wrong. By focusing on the obvious or immediate risks, the law can neglect the long-term benefits and costs.I mention all this by way of warning. As I understand it, it has been over 20 years since the Law Reform Commission considered the legal challenges around privacy and surveillance. A lot has happened in the intervening decades. My goal in this talk is to give some sense of where we are now and what issues may need to be addressed over the coming years. In doing this, I hope not to forget the lesson of the Red Flag laws.1. What’s changed?  Let me start with the obvious question. What has changed, technologically speaking, since the LRC last considered issues around privacy and surveillance? Two things stand out.First, we have entered an era of mass surveillance. The proliferation of digital devices — laptops, computers, tablets, smart phones, smart watches, smart cars, smart fridges, smart thermostats and so forth — combined with increased internet connectivity has resulted in a world in which we are all now monitored and recorded every minute of every day of our lives. The cheapness and ubiquity of data collecting devices means that it is now, in principle, possible to imbue every object, animal and person with some data-monitoring technology. The result is what some scholars refer to as the ‘internet of everything’ and with it the possibility of a perfect ‘digital panopticon’. This era of mass surveillance puts increased pressure on privacy and, at least within the EU, has prompted significant legislative intervention in the form of the GDPR.Second, we have created technologies that can take advantage of all the data that is being collected. To state the obvious: data alone is not enough. As all lawyers know, it is easy to befuddle the opposition in a complex law suit by ‘dumping’ a lot of data on them during discovery. They drown in the resultant sea of information. It is what we do with the data that really matters. In this respect, it is the marriage of mass surveillance with new kinds of artificial intelligence that creates the new legal challenges that we must now tackle with some urgency.Artificial intelligence allows us to do three important things with the vast quantities of data that are now being collected:(i) It enables new kinds of pattern matching - what I mean here is that AI systems can spot patterns in data that were historically difficult for computer systems to spot (e.g. image or voice recognition), and that may also be difficult, if not impossible, for humans to spot due to their complexity. To put it another way, AI allows us to understand data in new ways.(ii) It enables the creation of new kinds of informational product - what I mean here is that the AI systems don’t simply rebroadcast, dispassionate and objective forms of the data we collect. They actively construct and reshape the data into artifacts that can be more or less useful to humans.(iii) It enables new kinds of action and behaviour - what I mean here is that the informational products created by these AI systems are not simply inert artifacts that we observe with bemused detachment. They are prompts to change and alter human behaviour and decision-making.On top of all this, these AI systems do these things with increasing autonomy (or, less controversially, automation). Although humans do assist the AI systems in both understanding, constructing and acting on foot of the data being collected, advances in AI and robotics make it increasingly possible for machines to do things without direct human assistance or intervention.It is these ways of using data, coupled with increasing automation, that I believe give rise to the new legal challenges. It is impossible for me to cover all of these challenges in this talk. So what I will do instead is to discuss three case studies that I think are indicative of the kinds of challenges that need to be addressed, and that correspond to the three things we can now do with the data that we are collecting.2. Case Study: Facial Recognition TechnologyThe first case study has to do with facial recognition technology. This is an excellent example of how AI can understand data in new ways. Facial recognition technology is essentially like fingerprinting for the face. From a selection of images, an algorithm can construct a unique mathematical model of your facial features, which can then be used to track and trace your identity across numerous locations.The potential conveniences of this technology are considerable: faster security clearance at airports; an easy way to record and confirm attendance in schools; an end to complex passwords when accessing and using your digital services; a way for security services to track and identify criminals; a tool for locating missing persons and finding old friends. Little surprise then that many of us have already welcomed the technology into our lives. It is now the default security setting on the current generation of smartphones. It is also being trialled at airports (including Dublin Airport),[2] train stations and public squares around the world. It is cheap and easily plugged into existing CCTV surveillance systems. It can also take advantage of the vast databases of facial images collected by governments and social media engines.Despite its advantages, facial recognition technology also poses a significant number of risks. It enables and normalises blanket surveillance of individuals across numerous environments. This makes it the perfect tool for oppressive governments and manipulative corporations. Our faces are one of our most unique and important features, central to our sense of who we are and how we relate to each other — think of the Beatles immortal line ‘Eleanor Rigby puts on the face that she keeps in the jar by the door’ — facial recognition technology captures this unique feature and turns into a digital product that can be copied and traded, and used for marketing, intimidation and harassment.Consider, for example, the unintended consequences of the FindFace app that was released in Russia in 2016. Intended by its creators to be a way of making new friends, the FindFace app matched images on your phone with images in social media databases, thus allowing you to identify people you may have met but whose names you cannot remember. Suppose you met someone at a party, took a picture together with them, but then didn’t get their name. FindFace allows you use the photo to trace their real identity.[3] What a wonderful idea, right? Now you need never miss out on an opportunity for friendship because of oversight or poor memory. Well, as you might imagine, the app also has a dark side. It turns out to be the perfect technology for stalkers, harassers and doxxers (the internet slang for those who want to out people’s real world identities). Anyone who is trying to hide or obscure their identity can now be traced and tracked by anyone who happens to take a photograph of them.What’s more, facial recognition technology is not perfect. It has been shown to be less reliable when dealing with non-white faces, and there are several documented cases in which it matches the wrong faces, thus wrongly assuming someone is a criminal when they are not. For example, many US drivers have had their licences cancelled because an algorithm has found two faces on a licence database to be suspiciously similar and has then wrongly assumed the people in question to be using a false identity. In another famous illustration of the problem, 28 members of the US congress (most of them members of racial minorities), were falsely matched with criminal mugshots using facial recognition technology created by Amazon.[4] As some researchers have put it, the widespread and indiscriminate use of facial recognition means that we are all now part of a perpetual line-up that is both biased and error prone.[5] The conveniences of facial recognition thus come at a price, one that often only becomes apparent when something goes wrong, and is more costly for some social groups than others.What should be done about this from a legal perspective? The obvious answer is to carefully regulate the technology to manage its risks and opportunities. This is, in a sense, what is already being done under the GDPR. Article 9 of the GDPR stipulates that facial recognition is a kind of biometric data that is subject to special protections. The default position is that it should not be collected, but this is subject to a long list of qualifications and exceptions. It is, for example, permissible to collect it if the data has already been made public, if you get the explicit consent of the person, if it serves some legitimate public interest, if it is medically necessary or necessary for public health reasons, if it is necessary to protect other rights and so on. Clearly the GDPR does restrict facial recognition in some ways. A recent Swedish case fined a school for the indiscriminate use of facial recognition for attendance monitoring.[6] Nevertheless, the long list of exceptions makes the widespread use of facial recognition not just a possibility but a likelihood. This is something the EU is aware of and in light of the Swedish case they have signalled an intention to introduce stricter regulation of facial recognition.This is something we in Ireland should also be considering. The GDPR allows states to introduce stricter protections against certain kinds of data collection. And, according to some privacy scholars, we need the strictest possible protections to to save us from the depredations of facial recognition. Woodrow Hartzog, one of the foremost privacy scholars in the US, and Evan Selinger, a philosopher specialising in the ethics of technology, have recently argued that facial recognition technology must be banned. As they put it (somewhat alarmingly):[7]“The future of human flourishing depends upon facial recognition technology being banned before the systems become too entrenched in our lives. Otherwise, people won’t know what it’s like to be in public without being automatically identified, profiled, and potentially exploited.”They caution against anyone who thinks that the technology can be procedurally regulated, arguing that governmental and commercial interests will always lobby for expansion of the technology beyond its initially prescribed remit. They also argue that attempts at informed consent will be (and already are) a ‘spectacular failure’ because people don’t understand what they are consenting to when they give away their facial fingerprint.Some people might find this call for a categorical ban extreme, unnecessary and impractical. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater and other cliches to that effect. But I would like to suggest that there is something worth taking seriously here, particularly since facial recognition technology is just the tip of the iceberg of data collection. People are already experimenting with emotion recognition technology, which uses facial images to predict future behaviour in real time, and there are many other kinds of sensitive data that are being collected, digitised and traded. Genetic data is perhaps the most obvious other example. Given that data is what fuels the fire of AI, it is possible that we should consider cutting off some of the fuel supply in its entirety.3. Case Study: DeepfakesLet me move on to my second case study. This one has to do with how AI is used to create new informational products from data. As an illustration of this I will focus on so-called ‘deepfake’ technology. This is a machine learning technique that allows you to construct realistic synthetic media from databases of images and audio files. The most prevalent use of deepfakes is, perhaps unsurprisingly, in the world of pornography, where the faces of famous actors have been repeatedly grafted onto porn videos. This is disturbing and makes deepfakes an ideal technology for ‘synthetic’ revenge porn.Perhaps more socially significant than this, however, are the potential political uses of deepfake technology. In 2017, a team of researchers at the University of Washington created a series of deepfake videos of Barack Obama which I will now play for you.[8] The images in these videos are artificial. They haven’t been edited together from different clips. They have been synthetically constructed by an algorithm from a database of audiovisual materials. Obviously, the video isn’t entirely convincing. If you look and listen closely you can see that there is something stilted and artificial about it. In addition to this it uses pre-recorded audio clips to sync to the synthetic video. Nevertheless, if you weren’t looking too closely, you might be convinced it was real. Furthermore, there are other teams working on using the same basic technique to create synthetic audio too. So, as the technology improves, it could be very difficult for even the most discerning viewers to tell the difference between fiction and reality.Now there is nothing new about synthetic media. With the support of the New Zealand Law Foundation, Tom Barraclough and Curtis Barnes have published one of the most detailed investigations into the legal policy implications of deepfake technology.[9] In their report, they highlight the fact that an awful lot of existing audiovisual media is synthetic: it is all processed, manipulated and edited to some degree. There is also a long history of creating artistic and satirical synthetic representations of political and public figures. Think, for example, of the caricatures in Punch magazine or in the puppet show Spitting Image. Many people who use deepfake technology to create synthetic media will, no doubt, claim a legitimate purpose in doing so. They will say they are engaging in legitimate satire or critique, or producing works of artistic significance.Nevertheless, there does seem to be something worrying about deepfake technology. The highly realistic nature of the audiovisual material being created makes it the ideal vehicle for harassment, manipulation, defamation, forgery and fraud. Furthermore, the realism of the resultant material also poses significant epistemic challenges for society. The philosopher Regina Rini captures this problem well. She argues that deepfake technology poses a threat to our society’s ‘epistemic backstop’. What she means is that as a society we are highly reliant on testimony from others to get by. We rely on it for news and information, we use it to form expectations about the world and build trust in others. But we know that testimony is not always reliable. Sometimes people will lie to us; sometimes they will forget what really happened. Audiovisual recordings provide an important check on potentially misleading forms of testimony. They encourage honesty and competence. As Rini puts it:[10]“The availability of recordings undergirds the norms of testimonial practice…Our awareness of the possibility of being recorded provides a quasi-independent check on reckless testifying, thereby strengthening the reasonability of relying on the words of others. Recordings do this in two distinctive ways: actively correcting errors in past testimony and passively regulating ongoing testimonial practices.”The problem with deepfake technology is that it undermines this function. Audiovisual recordings can no longer provide the epistemic backstop that keeps us honest.What does this mean for the law? I am not overly concerned about the impact of deepfake technology on legal evidence-gathering practices. The legal system, with its insistence on ‘chain of custody’ and testimonial verification of audiovisual materials, is perhaps better placed than most to deal with the threat of deepfakes (though there will be an increased need for forensic experts to identify deepfake recordings in court proceedings). What I am more concerned about is how deepfake technologies will be weaponised to harm and intimidate others — particularly members of vulnerable populations. The question is whether anything can be done to provide legal redress for these problems? As Barraclough and Barnes point out in their report, it is exceptionally difficult to legislate in this area. How do you define the difference between real and synthetic media (if at all)? How do you balance the free speech rights against the potential harms to others? Do we need specialised laws to do this or are existing laws on defamation and fraud (say) up to the task? Furthermore, given that deepfakes can be created and distributed by unknown actors, who would the potential cause of action be against?These are difficult questions to answer. The one concrete suggestion I would make is that any existing or proposed legislation on ‘revenge porn’ should be modified so that it explicitly covers the possibility of synthetic revenge porn. Ireland is currently in the midst of legislating against the nonconsensual sharing of ‘intimate images’ in the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Bill. I note that the current wording of the offence in section 4 of the Bill covers images that have been ‘altered’ but someone might argue that synthetically constructed images are not, strictly speaking, altered. There may be plans to change this wording to cover this possibility — I know that consultations and amendments to the Bill are ongoing[11] — but if there aren’t then I suggest that there should be.To reiterate, I am using deepfake technology as an illustration of a more general problem. There are many other ways in which the combination data and AI can be used to mess with the distinction between fact and fiction. The algorithmic curation and promotion of fake news, for example, or the use of virtual and augmented reality to manipulate our perception of public and private spaces, both pose significant threats to property rights, privacy rights and political rights. We need to do something to legally manage this brave new (technologically constructed) world.4. Case Study: Algorithmic Risk PredictionLet me turn turn now to my final case study. This one has to do with how data can be used to prompt new actions and behaviours in the world. For this case study, I will look to the world of algorithmic risk prediction. This is where we take a collection of datapoints concerning an individual’s behaviour and lifestyle and feed it into an algorithm that can make predictions about their likely future behaviour. This is a long-standing practice in insurance, and is now being used in making credit decisions, tax auditing, child protection, and criminal justice (to name but a few examples). I’ll focus on its use in criminal justice for illustrative purposes.Specifically, I will focus on the debate surrounding the COMPAS algorithm, that has been used in a number of US states. The COMPAS algorithm (created by a company called Northpointe, now called Equivant) uses datapoints to generate a recidivism risk score for criminal defendants. The datapoints include things like the person’s age at arrest, their prior arrest/conviction record, the number of family members who have been arrested/convicted, their address, their education and job and so on. These are then weighted together using an algorithm to generate a risk score. The exact weighting procedure is unclear, since the COMPAS algorithm is a proprietary technology, but the company that created it has released a considerable amount of information about the datapoints it uses into the public domain.If you know anything about the COMPAS algorithm you will know that it has been controversial. The controversy stems from two features of how the algorithm works. First, the algorithm is relatively opaque. This is a problem because the fair administration of justice requires that legal decision-making be transparent and open to challenge. A defendant has a right to know how a tribunal or court arrived at its decision and to challenge or question its reasoning. If this information isn’t known — either because the algorithm is intrinsically opaque or has been intentionally rendered opaque for reasons of intellectual property — then this principle of fair administration is not being upheld. This was one of the grounds on which the use of COMPAS algorithm was challenged in the US case of Loomis v Wisconsin.[12] In that case, the defendant, Loomis, challenged his sentencing decision on the basis that the trial court had relied on the COMPAS risk score in reaching its decision. His challenge was ultimately unsuccessful. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reasoned that the trial court had not relied solely on the COMPAS risk score in reaching its decision. The risk score was just one input into the court’s decision-making process, which was itself transparent and open to challenge. That said, the court did agree that courts should be wary when relying on such algorithms and said that warnings should be attached to the scores to highlight their limitations.The second controversy associated with the COMPAS algorithm has to do with its apparent racial bias. To understand this controversy I need to say a little bit more about how the algorithm works. Very roughly, the COMPAS algorithm is used to sort defendants into to outcome ‘buckets’: a 'high risk' reoffender bucket or a 'low risk' reoffender bucket. A number of years back a group of data journalists based at ProPublica conducted an investigation into which kinds of defendants got sorted into those buckets. They discovered something disturbing. They found that the COMPAS algorithm was more likely to give black defendants a false positive high risk score and more likely to give white defendants a false negative low risk score. The exact figures are given in the table below. Put another way, the COMPAS algorithm tended to rate black defendants as being higher risk than they actually were and white defendants as being lower risk than they actually were. This was all despite the fact that the algorithm did not explicitly use race as a criterion in its risk scores.Needless to say, the makers of the COMPAS algorithm were not happy about this finding. They defended their algorithm, arguing that it was in fact fair and non-discriminatory because it was well calibrated. In other words, they argued that it was equally accurate in scoring defendants, irrespective of their race. If it said a black defendant was high risk, it was right about 60% of the time and if it said that a white defendant was high risk, it was right about 60% of the time. This turns out to be true. The reason why it doesn't immediately look like it is equally accurate upon a first glance at the relevant figures is that there are a lot more black defendants than white defendants -- an unfortunate feature of the US criminal justice system that is not caused by the algorithm but is, rather, a feature the algorithm has to work around.So what is going on here? Is the algorithm fair or not? Here is where things get interesting. Several groups of mathematicians analysed this case and showed that the main problem here is that the makers of COMPAS and the data journalists were working with different conceptions of fairness and that these conceptions were fundamentally incompatible. This is something that can be formally proved. The clearest articulation of this proof can be found in a paper by Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan and Manish Raghavan.[13] To simplify their argument, they said that there are two things you might want a fair decision algorithm to do: (i) you might want it to be well-calibrated (i.e. equally accurate in its scoring irrespective of racial group); (ii) you might want it to achieve an equal representation for all groups in the outcome buckets. They then proved that except in two unusual cases, it is impossible to satisfy both criteria. The two unusual cases are when the algorithm is a 'perfect predictor' (i.e. it always get things right) or, alternatively, when the base rates for the relevant populations are the same (e.g. there are the same number of black defedants as there are white defendants). Since no algorithmic decision procedure is a perfect predictor, and since our world is full of base rate inequalities, this means that no plausible real-world use of a predictive algorithm is likely to be perfectly fair and non-discriminatory. What's more, this is generally true for all algorithmic risk predictions and not just true for cases involving recidivism risk. If you would like to see a non-mathematical illustration of the problem, I highly recommend checking out a recent article in the MIT Technology Review which includes a game you can play using the COMPAS algorithm and which illustrates the hard tradeoff between different conceptions of fairness.[14]What does all this mean for the law? Well, when it comes to the issue of transparency and challengeability, it is worth noting that the GDPR, in articles 13-15 and article 22, contains what some people refer to as a ‘right to explanation’. It states that, when automated decision procedures are used, people have a right to access meaningful information about the logic underlying the procedures. What this meaningful information looks like in practice is open to some interpretation, though there is now an increasing amount of guidance from national data protection units about what is expected.[15] But in some ways this misses the deeper point. Even if we make these procedures perfectly transparent and explainable, there remains the question about how we manage the hard tradeoff between different conceptions of fairness and non-discrimination. Our legal conceptions of fairness are multidimensional and require us to balance competing interests. When we rely on human decision-makers to determine what is fair, we accept that there will be some fudging and compromise involved. Right now, we let this fudging take place inside the minds of the human decision-makers, oftentimes without questioning it too much or making it too explicit. The problem with algorithmic risk predictions is that they force us to make this fudging explicit and precise. We can no longer pretend that the decision has successfully balanced all the competing interests and demands. We have to pick and choose. Thus, in some ways, the real challenge with these systems is not that they are opaque and non-transparent but, rather, that when they are transparent they force us to make hard choices.To some, this is the great advantage of algorithmic risk prediction. A paper by Jon Kleinberg, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan and Cass Sunstein entitled ‘Discrimination in the Age of the Algorithm’ makes this very case.[16] They argue that the real problem at the moment is that decision-making is discriminatory and its discriminatory nature is often implicit and hidden from view. The widespread use of transparent algorithms will force it into the open where it can be washed by the great disinfectant of sunlight. But I suspect others will be less sanguine about this new world of algorithmically mediated justice. They will argue that human-led decision-making, with its implicit fudging, is preferable, partly because it allows us to sustain the illusion of justice. Which world do we want to live in? The transparent and explicit world imagined by Kleinberg et al, or the murky and more implicit world of human decision-making? This is also a key legal challenge for the modern age.5. ConclusionIt’s time for me to wrap up. One lingering question you might have is whether any of the challenges outlined above are genuinely new. This is a topic worth debating. In one sense, there is nothing completely new about the challenges I have just discussed. We have been dealing with variations of them for as long as humans have lived in complex, literate societies. Nevertheless, there are some differences with the past. There are differences of scope and scale — mass surveillance and AI enables collection of data at an unprecedented scale and its use on millions of people at the same time. There are differences of speed and individuation — AI systems can update their operating parameters in real time and in highly individualised ways. And finally, there are the crucial differences in the degree of autonomy with which these systems operate, which can lead to problems in how we assign legal responsibility and liability.Endnotes[1] I am indebted to Jacob Turner for drawing my attention to this story. He discusses it in his book Robot Rules - Regulating Artificial Intelligence (Palgrave MacMillan, 2018). This is probably the best currently available book about Ai and law. [2] See https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/airport-facial-scanning-dystopian-nightmare-rebranded-as-travel-perk-1.3986321; and https://www.dublinairport.com/latest-news/2019/05/31/dublin-airport-participates-in-biometrics-trial [3] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/facial-recognition-service-becomes-a-weapon-against-russian-porn-actresses/# [4] This was a stunt conducted by the ACLU. See here for the press release https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/amazons-face-recognition-falsely-matched-28 [5] https://www.perpetuallineup.org/ [6] For the story, see here https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49489154 [7] Their original call for this can be found here: https://medium.com/s/story/facial-recognition-is-the-perfect-tool-for-oppression-bc2a08f0fe66 [8] The video can be found here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCwbJxW-ZRg; For more information on the research see here: https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/07/11/lip-syncing-obama-new-tools-turn-audio-clips-into-realistic-video/; https://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/AudioToObama/siggraph17_obama.pdf [9] The full report can be found here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ca2c7abc2ff614d3d0f74b5/t/5ce26307ad4eec00016e423c/1558340402742/Perception+Inception+Report+EMBARGOED+TILL+21+May+2019.pdf [10] The paper currently exists in a draft form but can be found here: https://philpapers.org/rec/RINDAT [11] https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/communications/consultations/Pages/Regulation-of-Harmful-Online-Content-and-the-Implementation-of-the-revised-Audiovisual-Media-Services-Directive.aspx [12] For a summary of the judgment, see here: https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/03/state-v-loomis/ [13] “Inherent Tradeoffs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores” - available here https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05807 [14] The article can be found at this link - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613508/ai-fairer-than-judge-criminal-risk-assessment-algorithm/ [15] Casey et al ‘Rethinking Explainabie Machines’ - available here https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj/vol34/iss1/4/ [16] An open access version of the paper can be downloaded here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3329669 #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

In today's episode, we are joined by the most humble and amazing UN Under Secretary General and Special Adviser on Africa, Dr. Beance Gawanas. She took the time to interview despite being so busy with preparations for UNGA 2019. Ms. Gawanas was appointed in January 2018 as Special Adviser on Africa for the United Nations after having served as Commissioner for Social Affairs at the African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government, from 2002 to 2012. She was a Commissioner on the Public Service Commission in Namibia from 1991 to 1996, and an Ombudswoman in the Namibian Government from 1996 to 2003. She has also been a lecturer in Gender Law at the University of Namibia, Director of the Board of the Central Bank of Namibia, and involved in many non-governmental organizations including Secretary-General of the Namibian National Women's Organization and patron of Namibian Federation of Persons with Disabilities. As Chairperson of the Law Reform Commission she oversaw the passage of the Married Persons' Equality Act. The commission also did extensive work on Rape Acts and other important laws that were eventually passed after her time. I hope you all are as inspired as I was in being around her. We do have this podcast on video and will publish it on Ladyship's blog soon. After listening to her, it reaffirmed the vision that I have set for Ladyship. Follow bienceg on Twitter to see her comment about Ladyship!

Last year the world gained another bombastic populist and nationalist world leader who sent the political elities into another tailspin. In Brazil's 2018 Presidential election Jair Bolsonaro a well-known political maverick beat 11 other candidates breaking centre-left's grip on the nation's politics Bolsonaro was labelled a fascist by the left and international media, in Brazil so far during his Presidency he has introduced free market reforms, reducing the size of the state, rolling back the influence of cultural Marxism on the nation and empowering individual Brazilians. While Bolsonaro was attendance at the G7 late last month in France he copped a serve from President Emmanuel Macron due to the annual wildfires in the Amazon rainforest, Marcon said this was a global environmental issue as the amazon was the lungs of the world. Bolsonaro rebuffed any threat foreign interference over Brazil's sovereignty over the rainforest calling it colonialism and imperialism.  The western media in response posted endless hysterical fake news stories claiming that the Amazon was going to be completely destroy, and that Bolsonaro was basically an environment criminal. Brazil being a Latin American nation with Portuguese its local language it is very difficult for those in the west to know the real story about Bolsonaro's revolution in Brazil and how he is transforming the nation. A friend of The Unshackled who can tell the real story about Brazil's new beginning under Jair Bolsonaro is Professor Augusto Zimmermann. He was born and grew up in Brazil but is most known in Australia for his distinguished legal academic career. He is currently a Professor and Dean of Law at Sheridan College in a Christian Liberal Arts college in Perth, Western Australia.  He is also Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney's campus, a catholic university. He has previously been a Law Reform Commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australian and a former Associate Dean (Research) and Postgraduate Research Director at Murdoch University's School of Law. Professor Zimmermann is also the founder and President of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA), a former Vice-President of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy (ASLP), a Fellow at the International Academy for the Study of the Jurisprudence of the Family, and Editor-in-Chief of the Western Australian Jurist law journal. He is regular columnist in the Australian media in the spectator, quadrant online, news weekly as well as on theunshackled.net. He has also authored four academic books including No Offence Intended: Why 18C is Wrong along with Joshua Forrester. Lorraine Finlay. Plus three volumes of Christian Foundations of the Common Law all published by Connor Court Publishing. Augusto Zimmerman explains Brazil before Bolsonaro which is gripped by corruption and socialism. With Bolsonaro in office the ordinary Brazilians have hope again and want to be free. The Unshackled Links: Website: https://www.theunshackled.net Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TUnshackled Twitter: https://twitter.com/Un_shackled Gab: https://gab.ai/theunshackled Telegram: https://t.me/theunshackled Free eBook: http://theunshackledbattlefield.net/ Unshackled Productions: The Unshackled Waves: http://www.theunshackledwaves.net Debt Nation: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKKEHuAGzwVtIEIFW3cZOPg The Report from Tiger Mountain: https://www.theunshackled.net/reportfromtigermountain/ The Uncuckables: http://theuncuckables.com/ Rational Rise TV: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKKEHuAGzwVtIEIFW3cZOPg Support Our Work:  Membership: http://www.theunshackled.net/membership Donate: https://www.theunshackled.net/donate/ Subscribestar: https://www.subscribestar.com/theunshackled Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theunshackled Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/TheUnshackled Store: https://www.theunshackled.net/store/ Other So

Far left MP Alex Greenwich will this week introduce a bill deceitfully called the "Reproductive Health Reform Bill 2019" with the backing of the Liberal Health Minister Brad Hazzard & Premier Gladys Berejiklian. Killing living humans is not a reproductive act. It's patently destructive. 96% of scientists agree every human life begins at fertilisation.

Oliver Yates, the unsuccessful independent candidate for the seat of Kooyong plans to take the Liberal Party to the Court of Disputed Returns over Chinese language how to vote signage. And the Victorian Law Reform Commission has just released a consultation paper exploring the many complex issues around contempt of court, seeking input on its review of contempt of court laws.

The Irish Centre for Human Rights and the School of Law hosted a panel discussion with Dr Mary Robinson on the ‘The Necessity of Advocacy’ at NUI Galway on Wednesday, 24 October. Opening remarks are provided by Professor Siobhán Mullally and the event was chaired by Judge Tony O’Connor of the High Court. Guest panellists include: Dr Gearóid O’Cuinn and Gerry Liston of the Global Legal Action Network; Dr Maeve O’Rourke, Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Justice for Magdalenes; Professor Donncha O’Connell, NUI Galway and the Law Reform Commission; and Professor Niamh Reilly, NUI Galway. The Irish Centre for Human Rights has a wide range of courses available including new course International Migration and Refugee Law and Policy (LLM). Learn more at http://www.nuigalway.ie/business-public-policy-law/school-of-law/courses/postgraduatetaughtcourses/.

Liam Herrick was appointed to Executive Director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) in November 2016. Prior to his appointment, he worked as Advisor to President Michael D. Higgins for almost three years. Liam was Executive Director of the Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) between 2007 and 2014. He has also worked as the first head of legislation and policy at the former Irish Human Rights Commission and with the Law Reform Commission and the Department of Foreign Affairs. He is a member of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC), a former Board member of the Children's Rights Alliance and the Minister for Justice and Equality's Strategic Review Group on Penal Policy (2012-2014).

Episode 08: Is it time lawyers lose the legalese? MINDSET: LESS LEGALESE, MORE TRUST On this episode of the Checklist Legal Podcast: • Scientific proof clients hate legalese • Why lawyers should hate legalese too • Why (as Prof Joe Kimble says) the law is no serious obstacle to writing clearly and plainly • How you can sound smarter (hint: use plain language) • 3 legalese words to banish from your contracts. Key Takeaways Steer clear of legalese. Do the work to understand your reader and write for readability to gain trust. Complex texts are difficult to read. Write clearly and simply if you can, and you’ll be more likely to be thought of as intelligent. Ask for feedback… identify complicated wordy words in your contracts and other writing and look them up on word swap lists to find Actionable Challenge Do a “find replace” on your contracts for the following words… Utilise (or utilize)… swap for… Use Subsequent… swap for…Later, next Pursuant to…swap for… By, following, under LINKS Caitlin Whiteman, ‘Why easy-to-read is easy to like – what science tells us about the remarkable benefits of simplicity’, (21 March 2016) https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-easy-to-read-easy-like-what-science-tells-us-caitlin-whiteman Chistopher R Trudeau, ‘The Public Speaks: An Empirical Study of Legal Communication’ (May 20, 2012). 14 Scribes J. Leg. Writing 121 (2011-2012). Available at SSRN: ssrn.com/abstract=1843415 Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage (Hardcover), Bryan Garner. See also a fun article on these ‘here-and-there’ words based on Garner’s work by Andy Mergendahl (Lawyerist, 24 May 2012) lawyerist.com/43513/legal-writing-ditch-here-and-there-words/, accessed 10 June 2017. Joseph Kimble, ‘You Think the Law Requires Legalese? (21 October 2013) retrieved via legalwritingeditor.com/2013/10/21/think-law-requires legalese/#.WS1J1Gh97b0, accessed 30 May 2017. Centre for Plain Language, ‘Law Words: 30 essays on legal words & phrases’ (1995) Retrieved via clarity-international.net/documents/law_words.pdf accessed 10 June 2017. Law Reform Commission of Victoria, ‘Plain English and the Law Report’ (1987) No 9, Appendix I Drafting manual: Guidelines for drafting in plain English Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd Pocket Edition), definition via lawyerist.com/28922/thy-legal-writing-shall-not-include-shall/, accessed 10 June 2017. Joseph Kimble, ‘What is plain language?’ (2002) Retrieved via plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/definitions/Kimble.cfm, accessed 10 June 2017. BA Garner, ‘Learning to Loathe Legalese’ (November 2006) Retrieved via michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article1085.pdf, accessed 10 June 2017. DM Oppenheimer, ‘Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly’ Applied Cognitive Psychology, (31 October 2005) Retrieved via ucd.ie/artspgs/semantics/ConsequencesErudite.pdf, accessed on 10 June 2017. For more word swap ideas: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/files/alternative.pdf Head to https://www.checklistlegal.com/podcast for show notes, resources links, and templates. Music: 'Sway this way' by @SilentPartner

Does the government changing the constitution simply by redefining a word far beyond its originally intended use require a referendum? Have we legislated for punishment of "precrime", a notion of futuristic science fiction where you can be found guilty without evidence and punished for crimes you haven't YET committed based on psychic technology? Is Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in effect a blasphemy law: Shariah law by stealth? My distinguished guest this week is Prof. Augusto Zimmermann LLB LLM PhD (Monash University). He is the former Law Reform Commissioner, Law Reform Commission of WA (2012-2017), a Fellow at the International Academy for the Study of the Jurisprudence of the Family (IASJF), recipient of the Vice-Chancellor's Award for Excellence in Research, Murdoch University (2012), Editor-in-Chief, The Western Australian Jurist - the yearly academic publication of the Western Australian Legal Theory Association (WALTA), and the Senior Vice-President of the Liberal Party of WA Fremantle Division. ******* Pellowe Talk is an online show interviewing guests discussing Truth and Politics in important public issues. Join Dave Pellowe and his guests each episode for discussion and debate about the important public issues that can change our votes. Hear unchained common sense without political correctness, and help rebuild the strong Judeo-Christian values – the foundations of our nation – to their proper place in Australian society. Pellowe Talk is viewer-funded. You can support this free and independent voice monthly or with a one time donation here: https://www.DavePellowe.com/donate ******* What are your thoughts? Comment below, or on • https://facebook.com/DavePellowe or • https://twitter.com/DavePellowe or • https://instagram.com/DavePellowe • https://youtube.com/DavePellowe Sign up for new episode updates or get more content at: • https://www.DavePellowe.com

In this podcast of a seminar, Dr Eric Kwa discusses the agenda and approach being taken by PNG’s new government in relation to strengthening government systems and processes. Among other topics, Dr Kwa discusses the design of the proposed PNG Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Dr Kwa is the Secretary/CEO for the Papua New Guinea (PNG) Constitutional and Law Reform Commission and one of the country’s pre-eminent legal thinkers. A lawyer by profession with many years of experience in practice and research, Dr Kwa holds a PhD in Environmental Law from Auckland University, New Zealand. He also holds a Master of Laws with Honours (LLM (Hon)) from the University of Wollongong and a Law Degree with Honours (LLB (Hon)) from the University of Papua New Guinea. He was formerly an Associate Professor of Law and Dean of the University of Papua New Guinea Law School. This event was presented as part of the Development Policy Centre’s PNG Project, which receives funding from the Australian Aid Program through the Pacific Governance and Leadership Precinct.

Weand're opening the talk-back lines with Dr Augusto Zimmerman - one of the nationand's leading Academics on freedom of speech and freedom of relision. Dr Zimmerman is a Law Reform Commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. Help Vision to keep 'Connecting Faith to Life': https://vision.org.au/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In 1938 three Australian patrol officers – Jim Taylor, John Black and Pat Walsh – set off on an epic journey into the highlands of Papua New Guinea. Their purpose: to make contact with highland tribes who until then, had no contact with the outside world, and to explain to them that their lives were about to undergo incredible change. Fifty years later, Jim’s daughter Meg retraced her father’s steps and met people who remembered the day the patrol arrived. Meg’s observations are combined with excerpts from her father’s journal to provide a personal and poetic narrative about an extraordinary meeting of cultures. [extract from In My Father’s Footsteps] Dame Meg Taylor is a Papua New Guinean lawyer and diplomat. She studied at the University of PNG, received her LLB from Melbourne University and her LLM from Harvard University. She practiced law with the Office of the Public Solicitor and in the private sector, and served as a member of the Law Reform Commission of PNG. She was Ambassador of Papua New Guinea to the United States, Mexico and Canada in Washington, DC and then worked at the World Bank Group for 15 years. In August 2014, she was appointed Secretary General to the Pacific Islands Forum. Dame Meg is also Pacific Ocean Commissioner. This podcast features the Q&A session that preceded a film screening of Dame Meg's documentary, 'My father, my country', on 22 June. The screening was presented as part of the Development Policy Centre’s PNG Project, which receives funding from the Australian Aid Program through the Pacific Governance and Leadership Precinct.

The state government this week announced changes to BAIL LAWS, in an effort to reduce the large numbers of people who are refused bail, while waiting for a trial. More than a quarter of adult prisoners in NSW have not been convicted. The Attorney General Greg Smith has put forward a new “case by case” system, designed to ease the burden on prisons and give those charged a fairer deal. But he declined to follow the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission which suggested a general presumption in favour of bail. Legal observers say it’s a step in the right direction but may not be enough. MAX TAYLOR is a retired magistrate and the convenor of the Bail Reform Alliance – and he spoke with 2SER’s Mark Robinson.