Advanced Legal Research Take Home Exam Will Daymond (3160035)
Question 1
(a)Using and use ‘Russia wheat OR grain import site:nz’as the search term. Note that ‘~’ shouldn’t be used due to how wide it makes a search.
(b)Austlii – Advanced Search – Search: (contraband or prohibit* or illeg*) near calcium and (certified or leg*) near calcium products – Database: Commonwealth: All Primary Materials
(c)Go to LexisNexis, click on the commentary tab and use as the search term (loss or reduction) and (appetite or hunger) w/100 NSW
(d)First point – Free Text Search: price fix* – Case Name: Pinocchio – Jurisdiction: Commonwealth of Australia – Classification: Trade and commerce.
(e)Austlii – Treaties Library Link – Search: Australia and !chemi* near (dilut* or weak* or attenuate*) – Databases: Australian treaties not yet in force (ATNIF). Use !chemi* so that petrochemicals and biochemical etc. are included in the search.
Question 2
Since Selectrix Pty Ltd (hereinafter Selectrix) is the only case which refers to s7 of the Ozone Protection Act 1989 (NSW), one must determine if it is still relevant. The primary issue is whetherSelectrix, a Victorian case, is relevant to this NSW legislation. Note that it is the only case identified in ‘Noteup’ which addresses s7, but with only 12% relevance.
Firstly, one should check whether Selectrix addresses the proper section or s7 of another act or another section within the NSW act. This should be done by reading the case.
Assuming that it addresses the correct section, you should go to CaseBase. In the case name field put ‘Selectrix Pty Ltd and Humphrys’ and in the citation field put ‘[2001] VSC 45.’ To determine whether the case is relevant, you should look at the signals in the table ‘Cases considering this case’ to determine whether the case has been followed, distinguished or overruled. Note that the ‘Signals’ are not always accurate so the most reliable method is, if time permits, to actually read the cases.
The issue of historical depth of coverage is not important in these circumstances as Selectrixis a 2001 case and all online locations of Australian case law go back to at least 2001. However, due to the commercial sites only containing judgments for around less than 40 of the total 100 Courts/Tribunals, it is important to also use AustLII as it has the greatest coverage of courts and tribunals.
Consequently, one should click on the Selectrixhyperlink after using the ‘Noteup’ function for s7 in AustLII. Next click on ‘Noteup’ and look at what cases have examined Selectrixand whether they have followed, distinguished or overruled Selectrix. However, one problem is that AustLII doesn’t have a general automated method for noting up cases, thus there is generally no ‘Noteup’ button on a case. However, ‘Noteup’ overall works best for cases from 2001-2005, which does in fact cover Selectrix.
However, assuming that Selectrix isn’t relevant you may alternatively use CaseBase. In the ‘References to Legislation’ field put in “Ozone Protection Act w/p 7,” change the sources to ‘CaseBase Cases’ and the Jurisdiction to ‘New South Wales.’ This will help in determining whether any other cases are relevant. This is of importance as the act was assented to in 1989 and CaseBase has a larger historical depth of cases in comparison to AustLII. Once again, you can check the relevance of any case by assessing the signals. If again only Selectrixcomes up, you may take a more broad approach by typing into the search field “licen! and registration w/100 ozone requirement!” and as above specify the Jurisdiction to ‘NSW’ and the source to ‘CaseBase Cases.’ If once again no further cases arise, reduce the specificity of the search to include all jurisdictions. This is done because other jurisdictions may have a similarly worded licensing and registration provision, thus making the case applicable to s7 of the NSW act.
Note that a similar search may be conducted using AustLII using ‘licen* and registration near ozone requirements’ with the database as being either ‘NSW: All Cases’ or ‘All Case Law Databases.’ The reasoning for broadening the search once again to cover all jurisdictions is the same as that which was expressed in the previous paragraph.
A similar searches may be conducted on Firstpoint using its ‘Noteup’ facilities or generally using “licen* and registration and ozone requirements.” However, it doesn’t have the same coverage and breadth of LexisNexis.
A search may also be conducted using CaseLaw NSW on LawLink. Although it covers slightly less courts than AustLII, specifically covering 2/3 of all NSW courts and tribunals, it will sometimes be slightly more up-to-date than AustLII or commercial publishers. To search, click on ‘Advanced Search’ and enter ‘Ozone Protection Act’ into the ‘Legislation Cited’ field and enter ‘licen* AND registration W/100 ozone requirement’ into the ‘full text’ field. If no relevant results appear, only use the information in one of the fields to conduct a search, leaving the other one blank.
Westlaw Australia may also be used however it only covers a small number of courts, some of which aren’t available through UNSW. To search Westlaw, enter “ozone protection act” & licen! & registration & ozone requirement! in the search field and select all databases.
Lastly, CCH Australia could be used. The only benefit of CCH is that it has the greatest historical depth of cases concerning the Industrial courts. However CCH can be searched via AustLII, therefore see above for how to search AustLII.
Question 3
Given the obscure nature of the topic, it is important to use the databases which have the largest collections of journal articles and books, thus enabling you to uncover relevant resources concerning regulatory and policy issues of radio frequency identification (RFID) chip implantation into green sea monsters.
Primarily, knowing that there is a book containing a chapter on this topic by Bart Smith, or something similar, you should use Google Books ( Although, Google Scholar is available ( and covers ‘peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts and articles,’ I need to do a search of the text of the book as Bart Smith isn’t the author of the book but instead the author of one chapter. This is why Google Books is advantageous, as it provides a search over the full text of available books. Therefore, using the advanced book search, I would enter “Bart Smith OR Smythe OR Smyth OR Smithson OR Smythson OR Smithson” into the author field and ‘“radio frequency identification” chip implantation OR insertion OR embedment’ into the ‘with all the words’ search field. I would specifically not narrow the search to include “green sea monsters” as the search explained above should produce few results which could be then manually narrowed down to find relevant sources. If the search was narrowed there is the off chance there may be some relevant results which are missed due to the search query. Furthermore, the alternatives for Smith have been used in the search due to Google not accepting truncated or wildcard searches. If another search engine which accepted Boolean operators was used, I would input the phrase (Sm! or (!th and not with)) or variations of such a phrase depending on the search engine used.
Note that Google Books may be further used to identify other relevant books by searching ‘“radio frequency identification” chip implantation OR insertion OR embedment’ in the general search box, and leaving the authors field blank.
In respect of other databases to be used to find journal articles, since it is an International issue, I would use databases which contain International secondary materials. Although I would primarily use Sirius-Metasearch, it is seen as a catalogue or a gateway rather than a database. However, normally it would be used as it enables you to search up to 8 online databases with a single search query, thus enabling you to save time which is essential in the given circumstances. Note that given the time constraints, and the potential inability to find hard copies of the journals, it is best to do a search for full text materials.
Firstly, Hein Online should be used given that the database contains 1,147 titles and is a full text database. Hein Online is more advantageous than LexisNexis Global as LexisNexis global doesn’t allow you to search multiple journals at once. Therefore, Hein Online may be seen a resource containing a huge variety of journals, and saves time by allowing you to search all the journals at once. Consequently, to search Hein Online, click on ‘Law Journal Library,’ click on ‘search’ and then ‘field search.’ You should then enter ‘“radio frequency identification” OR RFID’ into one field, ‘chip implant* OR insert* or embed*’ into another, and ‘green sea monster’ into another. Make sure for each of the 3 search queries you designate that it searches the text.
Alternatively, given how the topic concerns a very recent and novel topic, it would be sensible to search on the Legal Scholarship Network (LSN). This database not only has access to over 20,000 articles from hundreds of law journals, some of the articles are drafts and pre-prints, thus making the database very up-to-date. However, from what I could determine, LSN does not accept the use of Boolean operators, thus in order to search it using Boolean operators I would use WorldLII. Further benefits of WorldLII are that it allows you to do full text searches and it contains 24 journals, although they are mainly Australian. However, one issue is that WorldLII may not be completely up-to-date with the articles posted on LSN, but it is a risk I would be willing to make. Therefore to conduct the search, go to and then click on ‘Law Journals’ in the left column. Into the search field put (“radio frequency identification” or RFID) and (chip implant* or insert* or embed*) and “green sea monster.” Also I would make sure I am searching full text and all law journal databases.
Consequently, to conduct a search on RFID chip implantation into green sea monsters I would use Google books, Hein Online and WorldLII (to mainly to search LSN).
Advanced Legal Research Take Home Exam Will Daymond (3160035)
Date / Action / Jurisdiction / Legislation / Interpretive Materials and Delegated Legislation / Case Law2006 and 2008 / Posts fraudulent info on the dating websites
and / British Columbia, Canada / • s181 Criminal Code 1985 (R.S.C.)
• s403 Criminal Code 1985 (R.S.C.)
• s95 Medical Practitioners Act 1996 (R.S.B.C) / • Bill C-27 - ‘An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct)’ – second reading speech – Bill yet to come into force / • R. v. Carew, 1992 BC S.C. 1530
• R. v. Atkinson, 2007 BCPC 209
• R. v. Boyle, 2005 BCCA 537
2006 and 2008 / Obtains contact info and photos from the Canadian and Australian dating website
(includes Clarice) / British Columbia, Canada / • s380 Criminal Code 1985 (R.S.C.) / • Convention on Cybercrime, European Treaty Series 185.
• Bill C-299 – ‘Act to amend the Criminal Code (identification information obtained by fraud or false pretence.)’ / • R. v. Théroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5
• R v Olan, Hudson & Hartnett (1978) 41 CCC (2d)
• R. v. Wolsey, 2008 BCCA159
2008 / Posts fraudulent info on the dating website / NSW / • s105 Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW)
• s300 Crimes Act 1900
• s184 Crimes Act 1900 / • Medical Practice Amendment Bill 2000 [Act 2000 No 64] - Explanatory note / • Clarkson v R (2007) 209 FLR 387
• Dix v Lin [2007] NSWSC 846
• DPP v Logan-Pye [2007] NSWSC 1492
NT / • s272 Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT)
• s103 Health Practitioners Act 2007 (NT) / - / -
2008 / Obtains contact info and photos of Wendy via / NT / • s227 Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) / - / • Say Hour v Bryan Michael Goble [1997] NTSC 129
• Barr v R [2004] NTCCA 1
2008 / Obtains contact info and photos of Susan via / NSW / • s179 Crimes Act1900 (NSW) / - / • R v Petronius-Kuff [1983] 3 NSWLR
• R v Crowley (1963) 82 WN (Pt1) 238
• Greene v R [1950] ALR 1
April 1, 2008 / Wendy meets John / NT / See 2 rows above.
June 15, 2008 / Clarice to fly to meet John in Sydney / NSW / • s178BB Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
• s180 Crimes Act1900 / • Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 – Explanatory Memoranda
• Crimes (Misuse of Public Property) Amendment Bill – Second Reading Speech / • R v Stolpe [1996] NSWCCA (BC9605110)
• Sasterawan v Morris [2008] NSWCA 70
• R v Petronius-Kuff [1983] 3 NSWLR
Journals / - / Holdaway S, ‘I don’t know the name…but the avatar sure rings a bell…an analysis of the law relevant to the appearance of representations of personality in cyberspace,’ (2007) 13, Canterbury Law Review.
NT / Steel A, ‘General fraud offences in Australia,’ (2007) 55, UNSW Faculty of Law Research Series.
Canada / Hoyano P, ‘The fraud elements of deceit & fraudulent misrepresentation’ (1996) 18 Advocates Quarterly
Canada / Parliamentary Debate by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights – 39th Parliament, 1st Session (Accessed via aspx?SourceId=194890&Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&COM=10474) - Covers the issues of personation and false pretence.
- / Pontell H, ‘’Pleased to meet you…won’t you guess my name?’ Identity fraud, cyber-crime, and white collar delinquency,’ (2003) 23, Adelaide Law Review
Explanatory Memorandum
To – Jane Malonowski From – Will Daymond Client – John Bailey
Subject: Legal Issues Pertaining to Personation, Deception and Fraud Offences under the Laws of New South Wales, Northern Territory and British Columbia, Canada.
Note: Over the relevant period, from 2006 to 2008 when the possible offences occurred, there was no change in the relevant legislation in any of the three jurisdictions.
Legal Issues
A. Whether John’s actions in posting a false profile on the dating websites constitute an offence?
Note that the issues of personation will be addressed in B. The main issue here is whether John’s fraudulent profile as a whole can be seen as an offence in any jurisdiction.
(i) Canada - The applicable legislation is s181 Criminal Code 1985 (R.S.C.) (hereinafter Criminal Code (Can)) which states that “Everyone who wilfully publishes a statement…that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest” is liable for a maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years. Whether he is likely to cause injury or mischief is unlikely, however no definite conclusion can be made since only cases concerning racism, freedom of expression refer to s181.
(ii) NSW - If it is found that the profile, which constitutes a document and thus an instrument, was intended to induce women to believe the profile was genuine and consequently made women do some act to their prejudice, then under s300 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (hereinafter Crimes Act) John is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
B. Whether John’s actions constitute personation?
Note that two issues must be addressed, the issue of personation generally and the issue of impersonating a medical practitioner. These are both addressed since if John is found not liable under impersonating a medical practitioner, he could alternatively be found liable under personation in general.
(i) Canada - Under s403 Criminal Code (Can),every one who fraudulently personates any person, living or dead,
(a) with intent to gain advantage for himself or another person,or
(b) with intent to obtain any property or an interest in any property,
may be imprisoned for a maximum term of 10years.
The specific person being personated must be a real human being, living or dead other than the accused and not some fictional person.[1] It is questionable whether Dr John Bailey was fictional or real seeing as he was an amalgamation of the two possibilities. Note that it was stated that obtaining a new identity can be seen as an advantage.[2]
Alternatively, under s95 Medical Practitioners Act 1996 (R.S.B.C) it is an offence to use the title “doctor” or affix it as a prefix to your name if you are not a registered doctor.
(ii) NSW - Under s184 Crimes Act it is an offence to falsely personate some other person, with intent to fraudulently obtain any property. Once again since the section doesn’t utilise the words ‘fictitious,’ then the offence is limited to impersonating real human beings, living or dead.[3] Whether obtaining contact information and photos constitutes property will be addressed in C, while whether John demonstrated an intent to defraud will be addressed in C(i) but in respect of Canadian laws.
Furthermore, under s105 Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW), it is an offence for anyone who isn’t a registered medical practitioner to use the prefix ‘Dr,’ and thus lead to the inference that the person possesses a degree which would entitle them to be registered. Consequently, is saying you are a medical physician for ‘Doctors without Borders’ a similar breach to that seen inDix v Lin[4]where it was held that by using the prefix ‘Dr’ and describing oneself as an orthopaedic surgeon constitutes a breach of s105?
(iii) NT - Similarly to B(ii), s272(i) Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) (hereinafter Criminal Code) specifies that any person with an intent to defraud another, who falsely represents himself to be some other person, living or dead, is liable to imprisonment for 3 years. While s103(1) Health Practitioners Act 2007 (NT) states that a person must not hold himself out as being registered, or else risk being fined 500 penalty units.
C. Whether John’s actions in obtaining the photos and contact information constitute obtaining property fraudulently?
(i) Canada - S380(1) of the Criminal Code (Can) states that if you obtain any property via deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means from the public, you are liable to a maximum prison term of 2 years if the subject-matter is less than $5000. Deceit is to be taken to mean ‘to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false, and which the person practicing the deceit knows or believes to be false.’[5]
‘Other fraudulent means’ should be given the broadest possible meaning, encompassing all means which can properly be stigmatized as dishonest.[6] The actus reus of the fraud is determined objectively, while the mens rea is established by proof of subjective knowledge that the prohibited acts might result in the offence.[7] Furthermore, in the absence of an explanation to the contrary, “subjective awareness of the consequences can be inferred from the act itself.”[8]
(ii) NSW - Under s179 Crimes Act, one is liable to imprisonment for five years if found guilty of using false pretences to obtain property from another with an intent to defraud. However, s179 is concerned with physical custody of objects not the concept of technical property.[9] Note also that the false statement must be one of a material existing fact, and a promissory pretence does not come under the offence.[10] Therefore, one must question whether John’s actions constituted a promissory pretence.
(iii) NT - S227(1) Criminal Code concerns obtaining property of another or a benefit via deception and may result in the same penalty as if the object was stolen. The issue is that ‘obtaining property’ concerns obtaining ownership, possession or control (s227(2)), yet can you control or possess information obtained over the internet? However, note that the benefit doesn’t have to be quantifiable in pecuniary or proprietary terms.[11] Furthermore, a benefit may include the obtaining of an emotional benefit in providing misinformation to another,[12] which could be said to have occurred here by John gaining confidence in respect of relationships. However, the plaintiff (the women in this situation) must prove beyond reasonable doubt that John is guilty of obtaining by deception.[13]