In this episode the wigs discuss a new police powers decision, Julie Bugmy v NSW Director of Public Prosecutions 2024 NSWCA 70, a recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal. It concerns the law applicable when police arrest a person believed to have breached a condition of a grant of bail. Wig Stephen Lawrence actually appeared in the matter, instructed by his old employer the Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT way back when it began in 2022 in the local court in Broken Hill before Magistrate Trad and the episode begins with a re-enactment of Stephen's short cross-examination of the main witness. The issues focused on in the cross-examination proved to be decisive in the appeal and concerned the legal requirements on police to consider certain circumstances and alternatives to arrest before arresting a person for breach of bail. 

In this episode the wigs discuss a new police powers decision, Julie Bugmy v NSW Director of Public Prosecutions 2024 NSWCA 70, a recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal. It concerns the law applicable when police arrest a person believed to have breached a condition of a grant of bail. Wig Stephen Lawrence actually appeared in the matter, instructed by his old employer the Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT way back when it began in 2022 in the local court in Broken Hill before Magistrate Trad and the episode begins with a re-enactment of Stephen's short cross-examination of the main witness. The issues focused on in the cross-examination proved to be decisive in the appeal and concerned the legal requirements on police to consider certain circumstances and alternatives to arrest before arresting a person for breach of bail.

The Wigs is a weekly-ish podcast exploring and interrogating contemporary legal issues in and out of the court room. The first and only podcast (so far) featuring practising barristers talking shop. Join Emmanuel Kerkyasharian, Felicity Graham, Stephen Lawrence and Jim Minns as they deep dive into the scenarios and outcomes that make up our legal system.

The Wigs is a weekly-ish podcast exploring and interrogating contemporary legal issues in and out of the court room. The first and only podcast (so far) featuring practising barristers talking shop. Join Emmanuel Kerkyasharian, Felicity Graham, Stephen Lawrence and Jim Minns as they deep dive into the scenarios and outcomes that make up our legal system.

The Wigs is a monthly podcast exploring and interrogating contemporary legal issues in and out of the court room. The first and only podcast  (so far) featuring practising barristers talking shop. Join Emmanuel Kerkyasharian, Felicity Graham, Stephen L...

The Wigs

The Legal Requirements On Police To Consider Alternatives To Arrest

In this episode Stephen sits down for a wide ranging chat with Barrister Ghassan Kassisieh. The discussion is lengthy and covers lgbt rights, international politics, refugees, the politicisation of gay rights in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict and comparative law, among other things. Ghassan is a Barrister at 12 Wentworth Selbourne chambers in Sydney after being called to the Bar in September 2024. He has a public and commercial law practice. Ghassan was previously Legal Director at Equality Australia where his legal policy advocacy contributed to over 16 LGBTIQ+ legislative reforms, including Australia’s first scheme regulating medical procedures performed on intersex people without capacity to consent. 
Ghassan also has over 13 years’ experience working as a solicitor in commercial litigation and regulatory matters at Gilbert + Tobin in Sydney and Freshfields in London. We hope you enjoy the chat!

In this episode Stephen sits down for a wide ranging chat with Barrister Ghassan Kassisieh. The discussion is lengthy and covers lgbt rights, international politics, refugees, the politicisation of gay rights in the Israeli / Palestinian conflict and comparative law, among other things. Ghassan is a Barrister at 12 Wentworth Selbourne chambers in Sydney after being called to the Bar in September 2024. He has a public and commercial law practice. Ghassan was previously Legal Director at Equality Australia where his legal policy advocacy contributed to over 16 LGBTIQ+ legislative reforms, including Australia’s first scheme regulating medical procedures performed on intersex people without capacity to consent.  Ghassan also has over 13 years’ experience working as a solicitor in commercial litigation and regulatory matters at Gilbert + Tobin in Sydney and Freshfields in London. We hope you enjoy the chat!

Stephen interviews Ghassan Kassisieh (law, politics & a few things in between)

It’s not every day of the week that a law is struck down as unconstitutional but that’s exactly what happened in the case of the Knitting Nanas against the State of NSW. Two Knitting Nanas Helen Kvelde and Dominique Jacobs with the help of the Environmental Defenders Office launched a constitutional challenge to s 214A of the Crimes Act 1900 that criminalised certain conduct such as remaining  “near” any part of a “major facility” (such as Town Hall or Martin Place Station) if that conduct “causes persons attempting to use the major facility to be redirected”, or if that conduct caused “partial closure” of the major facility, on the basis it impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication. Reacting to the win, Knitting Nana Helen Kvelde said “We are happy the court has given some acknowledgement to the democratic right to protest. But these laws to me feel like a distraction. As if both Labor and the Liberal Party are trying to get the population angry with protesters instead of angry against politicians for failing to protect us from climate emergency. I’m not sure what we can do next, but it doesn’t feel right to just let this go. We need to fight for our democratic right to protest peacefully. I wish people would understand that ultimately these laws could affect anyone – anyone the government of the day does not like.”

It’s not every day of the week that a law is struck down as unconstitutional but that’s exactly what happened in the case of the Knitting Nanas against the State of NSW. Two Knitting Nanas Helen Kvelde and Dominique Jacobs with the help of the Environmental Defenders Office launched a constitutional challenge to s 214A of the Crimes Act 1900 that criminalised certain conduct such as remaining  “near” any part of a “major facility” (such as Town Hall or Martin Place Station) if that conduct “causes persons attempting to use the major facility to be redirected”, or if that conduct caused “partial closure” of the major facility, on the basis it impermissibly burdens the implied freedom of political communication. Reacting to the win, Knitting Nana Helen Kvelde said “We are happy the court has given some acknowledgement to the democratic right to protest. But these laws to me feel like a distraction. As if both Labor and the Liberal Party are trying to get the population angry with protesters instead of angry against politicians for failing to protect us from climate emergency. I’m not sure what we can do next, but it doesn’t feel right to just let this go. We need to fight for our democratic right to protest peacefully. I wish people would understand that ultimately these laws could affect anyone – anyone the government of the day does not like.”

The Knitting Nanas take on Anti-Protest Laws and Win

In this episode the wigs analyse the latest judgment in the federal prosecution of donald trump, in which the trial judge soundly rejected his application to terminate the prosecution on the basis that the biden administration is targeting him in a selective and vindictive manner. Judge Chutkan in rejecting the application also refused the former president discovery of documents in support of his application on the basis it was not supported by sufficiently cogent evidence. The Wigs in analysing the case compare the basis on which a political prosecution can be terminated in the USA with Australia and discuss cases here that have featured somewhat similar issues. 

In this episode the wigs analyse the latest judgment in the federal prosecution of donald trump, in which the trial judge soundly rejected his application to terminate the prosecution on the basis that the biden administration is targeting him in a selective and vindictive manner. Judge Chutkan in rejecting the application also refused the former president discovery of documents in support of his application on the basis it was not supported by sufficiently cogent evidence. The Wigs in analysing the case compare the basis on which a political prosecution can be terminated in the USA with Australia and discuss cases here that have featured somewhat similar issues.

The Legal Requirements On Police To Consider Alternatives To Arrest

In 1 playlist(s)

The Wigs

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips