Good law reads. (1 Viewer)

[xeuyrawp]

No, not the type that cost you $300 and double as a brick, rather the kind that are enjoyable to read.

Has anyone read Chester Porter: Walking on Water, by Chester Porter QC? What about The Coroner, the autobiography about the ex-NSW State Coroner?

I can recommend both, although the former is not written so well, but they both remain very interesting for aspiring lawyers.

Has anyone read anything else, fiction, non-fiction, or otherwise, that they can recommend? Even non-Australian ones, although I'd like to steer away from the Crime Fiction genre, and towards the Legal Memoir idea if possible.

Any thoughts?

 

[Frigid]

well i like Richard Beasley's two books, as mentioned in the other thread...

also, you might want to read the classic, Richard Du Cann's The Art of the Advocate, Penguin 1980...

also, maybe try Keith Evans' Advocacy at the Bar, Financial Training Publications 1983 (ISBN: 0906322235).

 

[xeuyrawp]

well i like Richard Beasley's two books, as mentioned in the other thread...

also, you might want to read the classic, Richard Du Cann's The Art of the Advocate, Penguin 1980...

also, maybe try Keith Evans' Advocacy at the Bar, Financial Training Publications 1983 (ISBN: 0906322235).

Hey, thanks for advice.
What other thread? I did a search and I couldn't find anything of like sorts. Am I a crap noobie?

 

[Frigid]

i meant this thread.

btw, dude, you might want to behold the mega-tome that is McGregor on Damages.

 

[xeuyrawp]

i meant this thread.

Ah. Coo'.

More reading material.... I'm procrastinating from a history essay, so anything even semi-constructive is being done.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

John Grisham

 

[MoonlightSonata]

well i like Richard Beasley's two books, as mentioned in the other thread...

also, you might want to read the classic, Richard Du Cann's The Art of the Advocate, Penguin 1980...

also, maybe try Keith Evans' Advocacy at the Bar, Financial Training Publications 1983 (ISBN: 0906322235).

There's a whole section on the art of advocacy just outside the law lab, you should have a look

I've read a lot of them, some are pretty old but still fun to read

 

[santaslayer]

Do you people wear 5 inch glasses?
It's hard to imagine you still find reading enjoyable after going through stacks of pages for law seminars.
I used to like reading though...
I find it hard to keep my eyes open...esp after a criminal law reading session...

 

[xeuyrawp]

Do you people wear 5 inch glasses?
It's hard to imagine you still find reading enjoyable after going through stacks of pages for law seminars.
I used to like reading though...
I find it hard to keep my eyes open...esp after a criminal law reading session...

Heh, I can't imagine wanting to go into the legal profession whilst not enjoying any kind of legal writing.

Thanks for all the tips, guys

 

[Frigid]

Court clears way for rude Samaritans
May 19, 2005

People are under no obligation to rescue strangers in peril, a court has ruled.

The NSW Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed an appeal by a man who was stabbed after being refused sanctuary in a fast-food restaurant.

In early 1998, Eron Broughton, then a teenager, was out in Sydney's CBD when he and three friends were threatened by a knife-wielding gang.

Mr Broughton and his friends sought refuge in a Hungry Jack's restaurant on George Street, but the guard pushed them back into the street, where Mr Broughton was stabbed 10 times.

Mr Broughton nearly died and claims to suffer ongoing psychological problems and physical pain because of the attack.

He sought damages in the NSW District Court in 2003, claiming the security guard's actions led to his injuries.

But the then 24-year-old lost his claim after the judge found the security guard could not have foreseen the stabbing.

In yesterday's decision, Justices Ken Handley, David Hodgson and John Brownie said the security guard's first responsibility was towards the restaurant's customers and employees, whose safety may have been threatened if the gang had followed Mr Broughton's group inside.

Justice Handley said that "a stranger is not obliged to … rescue those in peril".

"In general the law does not impose legally enforceable duties on one citizen to help another," he said.

"The moral commandment to love one's neighbour is not enforceable by law."

----------------------

hmmmmm, this smells a little bit of Chapham v Hearse...

 

[xeuyrawp]

Court clears way for rude Samaritans
May 19, 2005

People are under no obligation to rescue strangers in peril, a court has ruled.

The NSW Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed an appeal by a man who was stabbed after being refused sanctuary in a fast-food restaurant.

In early 1998, Eron Broughton, then a teenager, was out in Sydney's CBD when he and three friends were threatened by a knife-wielding gang.

Mr Broughton and his friends sought refuge in a Hungry Jack's restaurant on George Street, but the guard pushed them back into the street, where Mr Broughton was stabbed 10 times.

Mr Broughton nearly died and claims to suffer ongoing psychological problems and physical pain because of the attack.

He sought damages in the NSW District Court in 2003, claiming the security guard's actions led to his injuries.

But the then 24-year-old lost his claim after the judge found the security guard could not have foreseen the stabbing.

In yesterday's decision, Justices Ken Handley, David Hodgson and John Brownie said the security guard's first responsibility was towards the restaurant's customers and employees, whose safety may have been threatened if the gang had followed Mr Broughton's group inside.

Justice Handley said that "a stranger is not obliged to … rescue those in peril".

"In general the law does not impose legally enforceable duties on one citizen to help another," he said.

"The moral commandment to love one's neighbour is not enforceable by law."

----------------------

hmmmmm, this smells a little bit of Chapham v Hearse...

Ah, that sucks. Stupid security guard. Champham v Hearse- where have I heard that before....

 

[MoonlightSonata]

If they allowed him in they would have potentially made their premises unsafe and liable under negligence within occupier's liability - how can you win?

 

[Frigid]

Champham v Hearse- where have I heard that before....

torts dear, torts.

 

[xeuyrawp]

If they allowed him in they would have potentially made their premises unsafe and liable under negligence within occupier's liability - how can you win?

Yeah, that's true, but surely the right[/] thing would have been to let the people in, although they might have themselves looked dangerous.

torts dear, torts.

Ah, yes. I r'member now

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Under the particular circumstances I think the right thing to do would be to let him in

I mean if someone comes to your door in panic asking for safehaven from some thug, you'd let them in and protect them. It's a fellow human being in dire trouble, why wouldn't you help them

But I suppose generally the people on your premises would be your first priority, legally. However -- that reminds me, Modbury Triangle anyone? Wouldn't the restaurant not be liable for the criminal actions of third parties?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Modbury Triangle anyone? Wouldn't the restaurant not be liable for the criminal actions of third parties?

Ah yes. Wasn't it argued in that case that the Shopping Centre had a responsibility to the employees because it was quite forseeable? If I remember correctly, Kirby J disagreed with all the other JJ on the matter and said that because there were a number of crimes in the area, the shopping centre should have realised that the area was prone to criminal attacks and hence any further attacks would be foreseeable.

Unfortunately, it couldn't be proven that leaving the lights on would have stopped the attack; as could you argue for the above case by saying that not only do the shop owners have no responsibility to let the kid in, but perhaps doing so may not have stopped the attack.

 

[jessika]

Chapham v Hearse[/I]...[/size]

lol, for some reason I really liked that case in torts.