Jeremy Gans

Author of 'Guilty Pigs' (with @drkatybarnett) and 'The Ouija Board Jurors', among other things.

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

Guilty Pigs, @drkatybarnett's and my new book full of stories about animal law, is available at bookstores and as an ebook (https://t.co/FlYHMzX5Ig.)
https://t.co/imo3hR3sAZ

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

@ViJaRada “In a sentencing memo, prosecutors said that federal guidelines called for a prison term of 15 to 21 months in prison.”

But, yes, prison would be silly - her lost career is the major punishment.

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

“Judge Adelman said on Wednesday that prison was not necessary. He described Ms. Dugan as “an otherwise good person” who was “upset by immigrant enforcement” and who had “made a bad decision in the moment.: https://t.co/PJE05IF1M3

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

“s 7(1) is capable of being construed so that it only authorises the imposition of a sentence that limits human rights in a way that is demonstrably justified.”

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

“Since Momcilovic, the Court has not had occasion to “revisit the important question of the content of the requirement” of s 32(1) of the Charter. This appeal may
provide the occasion to do so, in circumstances where the operation of s 32(1) is squarely”: https://t.co/aVV7jVCBWE

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

“Section 32(1) is concerned with the proper construction of all statutory provisions, some of which may be provisions that confer statutory powers on decision-makers (some of whom may be “public authorities”).”

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

“s 17(1) is not centrally concerned with laws, acts or decisions which
“interfere with” a person’s family, which is the core of the s 13(a) right. Rather, the core of s 17(1) concerns laws, acts or decisions which have some structural
or systemic effect on “families””

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

“The Attorney-General seeks leave to intervene to make submissions on the proper approach to applying s 32(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (Charter) in construing s 5(2)(g) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).”: https://t.co/qX5XJDdmKs

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

“For these reasons, s 5(2)(g) ought not be construed to require a sentencing court to take into consideration any Charter rights engaged by the imposition of a sentence on a particular offender.”

(A big change from 2008 era AG arguments!: https://t.co/GgpbvIH0XA.)

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

Mark Latham seemingly seeking special leave in @highcourtofaus to appeal Alex Greenwich’s defo win over Latham’s tweet:

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

(Hard not to get the feeling that Brown and Wilson would *both* be decided differently now, and for equally flawed reasons.)

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

Late to this: another data point in the English line of cases about consent to assault in sexual contexts: https://t.co/8jL54Q8SfG

Is this case more like Brown or more like Wilson?

[Jeremy Gans @jeremy_gans]

EWCA: “We suggest that nearly 30 years after Wilson there would now be much less enthusiasm for deterring police investigation of possible criminal activity on the ground that the parties were in a domestic relationship with each other.”