A landmark survey conducted by the Human Rights Commission has confirmed this morning that over half of the Australian university students surveyed were sexually harassed at least once last year. The Human Rights Commission surveyed 39,000 students from 39 universities across the nation for their report. Even more alarming is that one in four of the students surveyed reported experiencing sexual harassment in a university setting last year.

The results found that a vast majority of sexual assault and harassment instances were perpetrated by men, with women experiencing assault and harassment at alarmingly higher rate.

Major Insights from the Survey

Sexual Harassment

The survey set out sexual harassment as any “unwelcome sexual advance, unwelcome request for sexual favours or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.”

 

Sexual Assault

Sexual assault was defined as “when a person is forced, coerced or tricked into sexual acts against their will or without their consent, including when they have withdrawn their consent.”

 

The report marks a step in the right direction, according to Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins. The Commission put forward nine recommendations, including engaging in an independent review to address the assault culture in residential colleges, implementing a commitment to action from university leaders and improving the methods for responding to assault and harassment cases. While the survey certainly raises awareness of the severity of the situation in Australian universities, it is now up to uni leaders to pave the way for change. Whether action entails implementing the recommendations or adopting alternative methods to curbing sexual assault and harassment in university settings is irrelevant. As the report points to, the current institutional practices operating in Australian universities are simply not good enough. It’s time for change.

Students across Australia have the right to feel safe, particularly in the parameters of their learning environments. This survey is our opportunity to learn from the past, and work together with those who have experienced sexual assault to combat the situation.

 

If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault or family violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732. In an emergency contact 000. If you are facing any issues regarding sexual assault or harassment, please contact Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP.

Unions NSW has found that an alarming proportion of migrant workers are being paid far below award rates, through job listings in foreign language publications. The findings were based off a sample of job advertisements in Korean, Chinese and Spanish publications within Australia. The two-year investigation found that four in five jobs were paying below award rates – amounting to a frightening 80 per cent of jobs.

Unions NSW Secretary, Mark Morey, has confirmed that this investigation will be used to push the Turnbull Government to ensure that “just because your first language isn’t English, doesn’t mean you should… be ripped off at work.”

What is more surprising is that this unfortunate reality is not one being faced by migrants alone. Dr Stephen Clibborn, a lecturer at the University of Sydney Business School, confirms that the past two decades have pointed to an overall steady increase in the number of workers in Australia being underpaid. Clibborn puts a vast majority of this issue down to the fact that the chances of employers getting caught underpaying their staff are slim. While the Fair Work Ombudsman plays a large role in strategic enforcement, they do not have enough resources to ensure accountability in every workplace in Australia. Similarly, their capacity is limited in being able to directly respond to complaints and enact change.

Accordingly, the future for underpaid workers residing in Australia lies solely in the hands of our Government. Curbing the issue of underpaying migrants is one that will take time, but action must be undertaken to better regulate workplaces, inspect pay logs and ensure that employers are meeting the legal requirements in our country.

 

If you are being underpaid, or are facing any issues regarding fair pay, please contact Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP.

Increase in Assault Rates

The Public Service Association (PSA) has informed the NSW Government of a dangerous increase in the number of prison officers being assaulted by juvenile inmates. According to the PSA, the issue comes down to the lack of specialised training or powers granted to guards.

Stewart Little, the PSA General Secretary, has stated that the absence of any proper special-built facility or programs to train guards leaves them “being treated like punching bags and being spat on and assaulted on a virtual daily basis.” Following a meeting last month, the PSA threatened a strike if another officer was assaulted in NSW prisons. Corrections Minister David Elliot, however, dismissed claims of an increase. In fact, it was claimed that there had been fewer incidents of assault since the Berejiklian Government have been in office. The Minister did however assure the PSA that a review into the need for a juvenile supermax would be undertaken shortly. Similarly, the PSA were reassured that guards will be granted greater powers with time.

Increase in Contraband

The NSW Opposition has recently released information, under Freedom of Information, which demonstrates that over 110 mobile phones have been found inside NSW prisons since the Berejiklian Government has taken power. Concerns have also been raised due to the increase in the number of dangerous weapons found – namely glove guns, slingshots and ammunition – in cells.

The Opposition have called the regulation of discipline within NSW Prisons into question, after it was uncovered that 44 electronic devices were found at Goulburn Correction Centre this year: the supermax prison designed to house gang leaders and terrorists.

While Mr Elliot has asserted that the Government is in the process of investing in new ways to conduct vigorous searches in prisons, these alarming figures point to the fact that serious action must be taken to prevent criminals from establishing lines of communication outside the parameters of the prison and threatening the safety of our communities.

 

If you or someone you know has concerns about NSW Prison operations, please do not hesitate to contact us on 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP.

The internet is developing at a pace that few could have anticipated. While it is hugely advantageous in global communication and aids efficiency, its constant ground-breaking nature means that we have no precedents to refer to when attempting to resolve issues.

One key issue is the difficulty in regulation, particularly with regard to privacy and abuse issues. This becomes increasingly apparent as children become the predominant users and advocators of the internet, and technology is making it easier every day to gain access to almost anything and anyone. In addition, parents/guardians are often unable to understand or control their child’s online activities, leaving them vulnerable to abuse. These days, in addition to the well-known social media platform Facebook, children are also utilising applications such as Snapchat, Instagram, and Skype.

Victoria has recently introduced the Wrongs Amendment (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2017 to combat the abuse that children may face. While not restricted to online abuse, it can significantly support children who are victims of such abuse. The law places a Duty of Care upon various organisations including but not limited to schools, childcares, religious organisations, the government, and community organisations, to protect children from any sexual and physical harm. This duty essentially reverses the onus of proof from the child or child abuse survivor to the relevant organisations, potentially increasing the chances of success in subsequent law suits. Further, in contrast to previous laws, this act has a broader scope and prohibits any “child abuse material” rather than just “child pornography”.

Victoria has also amended their Crimes (Sexual Offences) Act 2016, reforming multiple sexual offences in order to account for the changing nature and platforms on which types of child abuse can take place. The adoption of these changes by other states could significantly lessen the burden and stress on child abuse survivors and encourage them to speak out against the perpetrators. Further, given that our legal system relies heavily on precedents and judgments in the absence of statute, claims regarding online abuse that go to Court could notably shape the way technology and social media companies approach privacy and abuse in the future, regardless of whether or not the claims are successful.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of any kind of abuse, please do not hesitate to contact us on 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiring box and we will get back to you ASAP.

 

What I expected to be another mundane, ordinary trip to the local shops last night, proved to be otherwise. For the most of it, it appeared like your average Thursday night. Shoppers of all ages – children with their parents, the elderly, and people on their way home from work – swarmed into Woolworths to tick of the arduous task of grocery shopping for the week. I myself was purchasing fish from the local monger, adjacent to Woolworths. My internal struggle in picking between the Basa or the Snapper was unexpectedly interrupted by an altercation happening outside the self-service checkout in the store next door. I had never seen anything like it.

Three men, adorned in plain attire, were confronting a middle-aged woman about her purchases. It was loud enough to stop shoppers from all around in their tracks. What we all came to realise, in fact, was that the woman had been found shoplifting. Whether she was a professional who had engaged in this conduct previously at this Woolworths, or a first time offender, was unknown. What we knew, however, was that her movements were being monitored by these men within the store for a while. Wanting to believe the best as to her intentions, I questioned whether it may have been a mistake at first. Her facial expressions, however, told another story.


Shoplifting, regardless of the value of the goods, is considered a form of stealing and therefore punishable. It falls under larceny; Section 117 of the Crimes Act with a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment (or 2 years, if dealt with in the Local Court). Accordingly, the Act grants police the power to arrest an individual who is in the process of, or who has just shoplifted. What I had just witnessed was an example of the New South Wales Police’s new covert operations that are aiming to crack down on supermarket security at self-service checkouts.

These new measures come in the face of 11,000 cases relating to shoplifting in NSW from last year alone. Similar operations are being conducted regularly in self-service checkouts across New South Wales, to remind shoppers that stealing – no matter how insignificant or cheap the product – is a crime that police. Likewise, police are reinforcing that scanning items for something of a lesser value also constitutes shoplifting.

No matter the motive, stealing is stealing. At the end of the day, you’ve just got to ask yourself whether stealing is worth being convicted of larceny and potential involvement in court proceedings. The answer is always no.

 

If you come across any issues regarding theft, please contact Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP.

 

Michelle Carter has been convicted of Manslaughter, for the role she played in the lead up to her deceased boyfriend's death

In a case handed down in the US last week, 20-year old Michelle Carter has been the first person to ever be convicted of involuntary manslaughter, for her role in the suicide of her then boyfriend, Conrad Roy. Roy had died of Carbon Monoxide poisoning and was found dead in his pickup truck on July 13, 2014.

The Court heard that up to the moment Roy fell unconscious from the toxic fumes, Carter was on the phone with him. Despite being able to hear the motor running and Roy coughing as a result of the fumes, Carter ordered her boyfriend to get back into his truck, after he had second thoughts about following through with his suicide attempt and got out. In the ruling, the judge stated that Carter’s conduct constituted “Wanton and reckless conduct, where there was a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would arise to Mr Roy.”

In the lead up to his suicide, it was found that Carter had sent numerous texts belittling Roy for failing to follow through with his threats of suicide and made him promise her that he would in the near future. Carter even sent him research on various methods under which Roy could carry out his attempts, including hanging, jumping off a building, and carbon monoxide poisoning (the method the deceased eventually chose).

Whilst not setting a precedent, this case will have substantial effects in the United States on how they deal with cases of a similar nature, which have previously been unsuccessful until now.

In Australia under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), an act or omission with reckless indifference to human life may constitute an offence of murder manslaughter, depending on the circumstances of the case. Whilst this American case does not directly affect our legal system and its precedents, it does raise a contentious issue in regards to how these cases should be dealt with.

If you suffer from depression or are having suicidal thoughts, please seek help from organisations such as Beyondblue or headspace. If you wish to discuss any legal queries relating to any issues featured in this case, contact us on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission files a lawsuit against Thermomix for misleading and unlawful conduct

Thermomix, the oh-so-popular compact kitchen that everyone once yearned for, is now in hot water after the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission filed a lawsuit against the company. This came after a spate of complaints, injuries and recalls of their TM31 model.

The ACCC alleged that the Thermomix misled customers about their consumer guarantee rights and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct regarding the TM31 model. They further alleged the Thermomix failed to comply with mandatory reporting requirements for injuries that arose with the use of their product, made customer sign non-disclosure agreements, while also making false and misleading statements about the recall of their product in 2014. The documents filed by the ACCC showed that customers were only allowed consumer law remedies if they signed a non-disclosure agreement that would prevent them from making negative comments about the brand. They also brought to light that despite Thermomix being aware of the risk their product posed to consumers after nine reported incidents where consumers had sustained serious burns and injuries, they continued to promote their product without bringing this information to their consumers.

By law, companies are required to give written notice to the ACCC once they are aware of any incidents that have caused serious injury suffered by any individuals. It is alleged that Thermomix In Australia Pty Ltd failed to do this on at least 14 occasions between June 2012 and July 2016.

The ACCC is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalties, injunctions, corrective publication orders, compliance program orders and costs, with the first Case Management Conference scheduled for 21 July 2017.

Stay tuned for the updates and if you are aware of any other complaints or issues incurred by you or any of your related personnel, please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8917 8700.

 

Gladys Berejiklian
Premier Gladys Berejiklian announced reforms to the first home buyers scheme in an attempt to ease the pressure on new entrants to the property market.

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has unveiled her government’s new reforms that aim to tackle housing affordability, with more than $1 billion of stamp duty concessions being announced.

First home buyers will be exempt from paying stamp duty for existing and new properties, costing up to $650,000, as of July 1. Those purchasing houses worth between $650,000 and $800,000 are also promised to receive stamp duty discounts. Additionally, the 9 per cent stamp duty typically charged on lenders’ mortgage insurance will no longer exist. The project will be funded by the doubled stamp duty surcharge for foreign investors, and the increased land tax surcharge (from 0.75 to 2 per cent).

The Berejiklian government’s plan to introduce more first home buyers into the housing market, and assist their competition with investors, will also be furthered by a call to remove stamp duty concessions for properties bought off the plan. As well, the $5000 new home grant scheme will be abolished and the ability for investors to defer their payment of stamp duty for 12 months removed.

The package is the government’s first initiative in addressing the issue of housing affordability, one that Ms Berejiklian promised she would prioritise upon becoming Premier in January of this year. The estimated $1.2 billion package is set to attract “thousands more” new first home buyers into the market over the next four years.

The measures announced also included provisions set to boost housing supply. Housing Minister Anthony Roberts stated that councils will be able to borrow more funds for infrastructure at reduced interest rates to accelerate the process of rezoning new developments. There will also be an increase in the involvement of independent panels for Sydney councils, to ensure that development applications are dealt with as swiftly as possible.

While this initiative is a step in the right direction in terms of addressing the concerns of many young people in NSW, it is being criticised for not increasing the construction of affordable housing for low-medium income workers such as nurses, teachers and police.

 

If you are looking to purchase a new property or sell your existing property, contact Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors on 02 8917 8700 today.

Kovacevski's fire started "there", he indicated to firefighters by pointing to a folder filled with divorce documents.  Image: Illawarra Mercury
Kovacevski's fire started "there", he indicated to firefighters by pointing to a folder filled with divorce documents. Image: Illawarra Mercury

Krste Kovacevski, has brought a whole new meaning to re-kindling the fire in a relationship. Kovacevski's divorce resulted in his ex-wife receiving the marital home. He was ordered to vacate his home within 40 hours, as dictated by a judgment handed down in the Federal Circuit Court. Prior to this, Kovacevski’s lawyer lodged the signed transfer documents of the home,that would transfer legal ownership of the property to his ex-wife. However, instead of handing over the property, Kovacevski instead decided to light the house on fire so that his ex-wife would not get the property.

Kovacevski was found in his granny flat in the early hours of 4 August 2016, calmly watching the home go up in flames.  The fire caused the roof to cave in, and the nearby houses had to be evacuated.

When questioned by firefighters how the blaze happened, the 75-year-old simply pointed to a folder filled with divorce papers and said “that’s where it started”.

Kovacevski is now defending himself against criminal charges for damaging properyt by fire.  However, his legal team told the court that the case relied on the question of who owned the property at the time of the blaze.  If Kovacevski owned the property a the time of the fire, then he could do what he wanted with it.

The prosecution argued that that the home was joint-owned, and as such, he was not entitled to burn the property.

Kovacevski had lived in the property, his only property, since 1991 but had not insured the home or contents.

The matter has been adjourned until next month in which Magistrate Douglass will hand down a judgment after considering documents from the Family Court and property law.

For more updates on this case, check back again next month once the judgment has been handed down.

If you are currently in a dispute with your partner or ex-partner as to the assets of your relationship or wish to come to a more amicable resolution than that of Mr Kovacevski, contact Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors today on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will respond to you ASAP. 

 

envelopeprinterphonemap-marker