Judges, ‘common sense’ and judicial cognition

References

• Secondary Sources
   Google Scholar
• Christine Agnew-Brune et al (2015) ‘Domestic Violence Protective Orders: A Qualitative Examination of Judges’ Decision-Making Process’ Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1.
   Google Scholar
• Adam Benforado (2011) ‘Colour Commentators of the Bench’ 38 Florida State University Law Review 451.
   Google Scholar
• Rudolf Bernet (2002) ‘Unconscious Consciousness in Husserl and Freud’ 1 Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 327. doi: 10.1023/A:1021316201873
   Google Scholar
• Tony Blackshield (1972) ‘Quantitative Analysis: The High Court of Australia 1964–1969’ 3 Lawasia 1.
   Google Scholar
• Tony Blackshield (1978) ‘X/Y/Z/N Scales: The High Court of Australia’ in Roman Tomasic (ed) Understanding Lawyers, Law Foundation of New South Wales.
   Google Scholar
• James Booth and Benoit Freyens (2014) ‘A Study of Political Activism in Labour Courts’ 123 Economic Letters 123. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2014.03.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kylie Burns (2004) ‘The Way the World Is: Social Facts in High Court Negligence Cases’ 12 Torts Law Journal 215.
   Google Scholar
• Kylie Burns (2012) ‘The Australian High Court and Social Facts: A Content Analysis Study’ 40 Federal Law Review 317.
   Google Scholar
• Kylie Burns (2013) ‘Its Not Just Policy: The Role of Social Facts in Judicial Reasoning in Negligence Cases’ 21 Torts Law Journal 73.
   Google Scholar
• Kylie Burns and Terri Hutchinson (2009) ‘The Impact of “Empirical Facts” on Legal Scholarship and Legal Research Training’ 43(2) Law Teacher 153. doi: 10.1080/03069400903004236
   Google Scholar
• Peter Cane (2000) ‘Consequences in Judicial Reasoning’ in J Horder (ed) Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School, http://www.culturalcognition.net/
   Google Scholar
• Emma Cunliffe (2014) ‘Judging, Fast and Slow: Using Decision-Making Theory to Explore Judicial Fact Determination’ 18 The International Journal of Evidence and Proof 139. doi: 10.1350/ijep.2014.18.2.447
   Google Scholar
• Shai Danzigera, Jonathan Levavb and Liora Avnaim-Pessoa (2011) ‘Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions’ 108(7) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 6898.
   Google Scholar
• Kenneth Culp Davis (1942) ‘An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process’ 55 Harvard Law Review 364. doi: 10.2307/1335092
   Google Scholar
• Kenneth Culp Davis (1955) ‘Judicial Notice’ 55(7) Columbia Law Review 945. doi: 10.2307/1119390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenneth Culp Davis (1986) ‘Judicial, Legislative and Administrative Lawmaking: A Proposed Research Service for the Supreme Court’ 71 Minnesota Law Review 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosalind Dixon (2010) ‘Female Justices, Feminism and the Politics of Judicial Appointment: A Re-Examination’ 21 Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 297.
   Google Scholar
• Mary Douglas (1966) Purity and Danger, Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Heather Douglas, et al (eds) (2014) Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law, Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky (1982) Risk and Culture, University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gary Edmond, David Hamer and Emma Cunliffe (2016) 'A Little Ignorance is a Dangerous Thing: Engaging with Exogenous Knowledge not Adduced by the Parties' 25(3) Griffith Law Review 383–413.
   Google Scholar
• Jerome Frank (1931) ‘Are Judges Human? Part One: The Effect on Legal Thinking of the Assumption That Judges Behave like Human Beings’ 80 University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register 17. doi: 10.2307/3308020
   Google Scholar
• Hon Justice Robert French (2007) Speaking in Tongues-Courts and Cultures: 25th Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Annual Conference Cultures and the Law, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedJSchol/2007/18.html.
   Google Scholar
• Hon Chief Justice Robert French (2009) Conference on Judicial Reasoning: Art or Science? Opening Address, http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/frenchcj/frenchcj7feb09.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Stephen Gageler (2009) ‘Fact and Law’ 11 The Newcastle Law Review 1.
   Google Scholar
• Justice Stephen Gageler (2014) ‘Why Write Judgments’ 36 Sydney Law Review 189.
   Google Scholar
• Justice Stephen Gageler (2014b) ‘What Is Information Technology Doing to the Common Law’ 39 Australian Bar Review 145.
   Google Scholar
• Justice Stephen Gageler (2015) ‘Whitmore and the Americans: Some American Influences on the Development of Australian Administrative Law’ 38(4) UNSW Law Journal 48.
   Google Scholar
• John Gava (2001) ‘The Rise of the Hero Judge’ 24 University of New South Wales Law Journal 747.
   Google Scholar
• John Gava (2003) ‘Another Blast from the Past or Why the Left Should Embrace Strict Legalism: A Reply to Frank Carrigan’ 27(1) Melbourne University Law Review 186.
   Google Scholar
• John Gava (2007) ‘Unconvincing and Perplexing: Hutchison and Stapleton on Judging’ 26(1) The University of Queensland Law Journal 67.
   Google Scholar
• Adam Glynn and Maya Sen (2015) ‘Identifying Judicial Empathy: Dies Having Daughters Cause Judges to Rule for Women’s Issues?’ 59(1) American Journal of Political Science 37. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarah Gordon (2015) ‘All Together Now: Using Principles of Group Dynamics to Train Better Jurors’ 48 Indiana Law Review 416. doi: 10.18060/4806.0002
   Google Scholar
• Brianne Gorod (2011) ‘The Adversarial Myth: Appellate Court Extra-Record Factfinding’ 61 Duke Law Journal 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reg Graycar (1994) ‘Gendered Assumptions in Family Law Decision-Making’ 22 Federal Law Review 278.
   Google Scholar
• Reg Graycar (1995) ‘The Gender of Judgments: An Introduction’ in Margaret Thornton (ed) Public and Private: Feminist Legal Debates, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reg Graycar (1998) ‘The Gender of Judgments: Some Reflections on Bias’ 32 University of British Columbia Law Review 1.
   Google Scholar
• Reg Graycar (2008) ‘Gender, Race, Bias and Perspective: OR, How Otherness Colours Your Judgment’ 15(1–2) International Journal of the Legal Profession 73. doi: 10.1080/09695950802439734
   Google Scholar
• Chris Guthrie (2007) ‘Misjudging’ 7 Nevada Law Review 420.
   Google Scholar
• Chris Guthrie et al (2001) ‘Inside the Judicial Mind’ 86 Cornell Law Review 777.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey Rachlinski and Andrew Wistrich (2007) ‘Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Hard Cases’ 93(1) Cornell Law Review 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey Rachlinski and Andrew Wistrich (2008–2009) ‘The “Hidden Judiciary”: An Empirical Examination of the Executive Branch Justice’ 58 Duke Law Journal 1477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lady Hale (2013) Should Judges be Socio-Legal Scholars, Socio-Legal Studies Association 2013 Conference, https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-130326.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• David Hamer and Gary Edmond (2016) ‘Judicial Notice: Beyond Adversarialism and into the Exogenous Zone’ 25(3) Griffith Law Review 291–318.
   Google Scholar
• Reid Hastie and Robyn Dawes (2010) Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making, 2nd ed, Sage Publications Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Brian Head (2008) ‘Wicked Problems in Public Policy’ 3(3) Public Policy 101.
   Google Scholar
• Marybeth Herald (2007) ‘Deceptive Appearances: Judges, Cognitive Bias and Dress Codes’ 41 University of San Francisco Law Review 1.
   Google Scholar
• JD Heydon (2003) ‘Judicial Activism and the Death of the Rule of Law’ 23 Australian Bar Review 1.
   Google Scholar
• JD Heydon (2006) ‘Limits to the Powers of Ultimate Appellate Courts’ 122 Law Quarterly Review 399.
   Google Scholar
• Justice JD Heydon (2011) ‘Developing the Common Law’ in Justin Gleeson and Ruth Higgins (eds) Constituting Law: Legal Argument and Social Values, Federation Press.
   Google Scholar
• Justice JD Heydon (2013) Cross on Evidence, Lexis Nexis.
   Google Scholar
• Emily Holland (2012) ‘Moving Pictures … Maintaining Justice? Clarifying the Right Role for Victim Impact Videos in the Capital Context’ 17(1) Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law 147.
   Google Scholar
• Rosemary Hunter (2008) ‘Can Feminist Judges Make a Difference ?’ 15(1 and 2) International Journal of the Legal Profession 7. doi: 10.1080/09695950802439759
   Google Scholar
• Hon John Irwin and Daniel Real (2010) ‘Unconscious Influences on Judicial Decision-Making: The Illusion of Objectivity’ 43 McGeorge Law Review 1.
   Google Scholar
• Christine Jolls, Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler (1998) ‘A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics’ 50 Stanford Law Review 1471. doi: 10.2307/1229304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judicial Commission of NSW (2015) Equality Before the Law Bench Book: Update 9 http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/equality.
   Google Scholar
• Dan Kahan (2009) ‘“Ideology In” or “Cultural Cognition of” Judging: What Difference Does it Make?’ 92(3) Marquette Law Review 413.
   Google Scholar
• Dan Kahan (2010) ‘Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What and Why, in Acquaintance-Rape Cases’ 158 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 729.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dan Kahan and Donald Braman (2006) ‘Cultural Cognition and Public Policy’ 24 Yale Law and Policy Review 147.
   Google Scholar
• Dan Kahan et al (2007) ‘Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White-Male Effect in Risk Perception’ 4(4) Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 465. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x
   Google Scholar
• Dan Kahan and Donald Braman (2008) ‘The Self-Defensive Cognition of Self-Defense’ 45(1) American Criminal Law Review 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dan Kahan et al (2009) ‘Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? Scott v Harris and the Perils of Cognitive Illiberalism’ 122 Harvard Law Review 837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dan Kahan et al (2012) ‘“They Saw a Protest”: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction’ 64(4) Stanford Law Review 851.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dan Kahan et al (2016) ‘“Ideology” or “Situation Sense”? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment' 164(2) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• David Klein and Gregory Mitchell (eds) (2010) The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Russell Korobkin and Thomas Ulen (2000) ‘Law and Behavioral Science: Removing the Rationality Assumption from Law and Economics’ 88 California Law Review 1051. doi: 10.2307/3481255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziva Kunda (1990) ‘The Case for Motivated Reasoning’ 108(3) Psychological Bulletin 480. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ainslie Lamb and John Littrich (2007) Lawyers in Australia, The Federation Press.
   Google Scholar
• Allison Orr Larsen (2012) ‘Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding’ 98 Virginia Law Review 1255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allison Orr Larsen (2014) ‘The Trouble with Amicus Facts’ 100 Virginia Law Review 1757.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mary Lesch et al (2016) ‘Effects of Culture (China vs US) and Task on Perceived Hazard: Evidence from Product Ratings, Label Ratings and Product to Label Matching’ 52 Applied Ergonomics 43. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kathy Mack and Sharon Roach Anleu (2008) ‘The National Survey of Australian Judges: An Overview of Findings’ 18 Journal of Judicial Administration 5.
   Google Scholar
• Terry Maroney (2011a) ‘The Persistent Cultural Script of Judicial Dispassion’ 99 California Law Review 629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terry Maroney (2011b) ‘Emotional Regulation and Judicial Behavior’ 99 California Law Review 1485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terry Maroney (2012) ‘Angry Judges’ 65 Vanderbilt Law Review 1207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terry Maroney (2015) ‘Why Choose? A Response to Rachlinski, Wistrich and Guthrie’s “Heart Versus Head: Do Judges Follow the Law or Follow Their Feelings?”’ 93 Texas Law Review 317.
   Google Scholar
• Wendy Martinek (2010) ‘Judges as Members of Small Groups’ in David Klein and Gregory Mitchell (eds) The Psychology of Judicial Decision-Making, Oxford University Press, p 73.
   Google Scholar
• Hon Justice Keith Mason (2001) ‘Unconscious Judicial Prejudice’ 71 Australian Law Journal 676.
   Google Scholar
• Keith Mason (2011) ‘Ethics and the Environment’ 10 The Judicial Review 187.
   Google Scholar
• Justice Peter McClellan (2006) ‘Who Is Telling the Truth? Psychology, Common Sense and the Law’ 80 Australian Law Journal 655.
   Google Scholar
• Hon Justice Peter McClellan (2015) ‘Professional Knowledge and Judicial Understanding’, Keynote Address: 14th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/media-centre/speeches/professional-knowledge-and-judicial-understanding.
   Google Scholar
• Hon Justice Peter McClellan (2015) ‘Legislative Facts and s 144-A Contemporary Problem?’, Supreme Court of New South Wales Annual Conference 2015, https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/media-centre/speeches/supreme-court-of-new-south-wales-annual-conference.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas Miles and Cass Sunstein (2008) ‘The New Legal Realism’ 75 The University of Chicago Law Review 831.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John Monahan and Laurens Walker (1991) ‘Empirical Questions without Empirical Answers’ 1991 Wisconsin Law Review 569.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham Mullane (1998) ‘Evidence of Social Science Research: Law, Practice and Options in the Family Court of Australia’ 72(6) Australian Law Journal 434.
   Google Scholar
• Lord Neuberger (2012) Judges and Professors-Ships Passing in the Night? Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Speeches/mr-speech-hamburg-lecture-09072012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lord Neuberger (2015) ‘Judge Not, That ye be not Judged: Judging Judicial Decision-making’ P A Mann Lecture, https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-150129.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hon Justice Pagone (2009) ‘Centipedes, Liars and Unconscious Bias’ 83 Australian Law Journal 255.
   Google Scholar
• Jason L Pierce (2006) Inside the Mason Court Revolution: The High Court of Australia Transformed, Carolina Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jason Pierce (2008) ‘Institutional Cohesion in the High Court of Australia: Do American Theories Travel Well Down Under?’ 46(3) Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 318. doi: 10.1080/14662040802176582
   Google Scholar
• Richard Posner (2008) How Judges Think, Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Richard Posner (2010) ‘Some Realism about Judges: A Reply to Edwards and Livermore’ 59 Duke Law Journal 117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richard Posner (2013) Reflections on Judging, Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Emily Pronin (2008) ‘How We See Ourselves and How We See Others’ 320 Science 1177. doi: 10.1126/science.1154199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeffrey Rachlinski (2011) ‘Evidence-based Law’ 96 Cornell Law Review 901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeffrey Rachlinski et al (2009) ‘Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges’ 84(3) Notre Dame Law Review 1195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zoe Rathus (2012) ‘A Call for Clarity in the Use of Social Science Research in Family Lay Decision-Making’ 26 Australian Journal of Family Law 81.
   Google Scholar
• Zoe Rathus (2013) ‘Shifting Language and Meanings Between Social Science and the Law: Defining Family Violence’ 36(2) University of New South Wales Law Journal 359.
   Google Scholar
• Sharon Roach Anleu and Kathy Mack (2010) ‘The Work of the Australian Judiciary: Public and Judicial Attitudes’ 20 Journal of Judicial Administration 3.
   Google Scholar
• Sharon Roach Anleu and Kathy Mack (2013) ‘Judicial Authority and Emotion Work’ 11 The Judicial Review 329.
   Google Scholar
• Jennifer Robbennolt and Valerie Hans (2016) The Psychology of Tort Law, New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leanne Sharp (1995) ‘Cognitive Heuristics and Law’ 20 Bulletin of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy 71.
   Google Scholar
• Frederick Schauer (2010) ‘Is There a Psychology of Judging’ in David Klein and Gregory Mitchell (eds) The Psychology of Judicial Decision-Making, Oxford University Press, p 103.
   Google Scholar
• Frederick Schauer (2013) ‘The Decline of “The Record”: A Comment on Posner’ 51 Duquesne Law Review 51.
   Google Scholar
• Glendon Schubert (1968) ‘Political Ideology on the High Court’ 3 Politics 21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glendon Schubert (1969) ‘Judicial Attitudes and Policy-Making in the Dixon Court’ 7 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 1.
   Google Scholar
• Paul Secunda (2010) ‘Cultural Cognition at Work’ 38 Florida State University Law Review 107.
   Google Scholar
• Paul Secunda (2012) ‘Cognitive Illiberalism and Institutional Debiasing Strategies’ 49 San Diego Law Review 373.
   Google Scholar
• Andrew Serpell (2006) The Reception and Use of Social Policy Information in the High Court of Australia, Law Book Co.
   Google Scholar
• Andrew Serpell (2011) ‘Social Policy Information: Recent Decisions of the High Court of Australia’ 21 Journal of Judicial Administration 109.
   Google Scholar
• Reginald Sheehan, Rebecca Gill and Kirk Randazzo (2012) Judicialization of Politics, Carolina Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Avrom Sherr (2008) ‘Legal Profession, Social Background, Entry and Training’ in Peter Cane and Joanne Conaghan (eds) The New Oxford Companion to Law, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Herbert Simon (1955) ‘A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice’ 69(1) The Quarterly Journal of Economics 99. doi: 10.2307/1884852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell Smyth (2005) ‘The Role of Attitudinal, Institutional and Environmental Factors in Explaining Variations in the Dissent Rate on the High Court of Australia’ 40(4) Australian Journal of Political Science 519. doi: 10.1080/10361140500302480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell Smyth (2007) ‘What Explains Dissent on the High Court of Australia? An Empirical Assessment Using a Cointegration and Error Correction Approach’ 4(2) Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 401. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00093.x
   Google Scholar
• William Sullivan et al (2007) Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law, Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Cass Sunstein (1997) ‘Behavioral Analysis of Law’ 64 University of Chicago Law Review 1175. doi: 10.2307/1600213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cass R Sunstein (2009) ‘Trimming’ 122 Harvard Law Review 1049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elizabeth Thornburg (2008) ‘The Curious Appellate Judge: Ethical Limits on Independent Research’ 28 Review of Litigation 131.
   Google Scholar
• Margaret Thornton (1996) Dissonance and Distrust: Women in the Legal Profession, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christopher Tran (2012) ‘Facts and Evidence in Litigation Under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (VIC) and the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)’ 36 Melbourne University Law Review 287.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan Turner (2015) ‘The High Court of Australia and Political Science: A Revised Historiography and New Research Agenda’ 50(2) Australian Journal of Political Science 347. doi: 10.1080/10361146.2015.1006165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1974) ‘Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’ 185 Science 1124. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurens Walker and John Monahan (1987) ‘Social Frameworks: A New Use of Social Science in Law’ 73 Virginia Law Review 559. doi: 10.2307/1072923
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• David Weiden (2011) ‘Judicial Politicization, Ideology, and Activism at the High Courts of the United States, Canada, and Australia’ 64(2) Political Research Quarterly 335. doi: 10.1177/1065912909352775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betty Weiler et al (2015) A Review of Safety Signage for Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service: Report 1: Literature Review, School of Business and Tourism, Southern Cross University, http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1469&context=bus_tourism_pubs
   Google Scholar
• Justice Mark Weinberg (2013) Evidence-based Law: Its Place in the Criminal Justice System, Judicial College of Victoria Workshop, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/VicJSchol/2013/7.pdf
   Google Scholar
• George Williams (2000) ‘The Amicus Curiae and Intervener in the High Court of Australia: A Comparative Analysis’ 28 Federal Law Review 365.
   Google Scholar
• Andrew Wistrich et al (2004–5) ‘Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding’ 153 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrew Wistrich, Jeffrey Rachlinski and Chris Guthrie (2015) ‘Heart vs Head: Do Judges Follow the Law or Follow Their Feelings?’ 93 Texas Law Review 855.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primary Sources
   Google Scholar
• Aytugrul v R [2010] NSWCCA 272
   Google Scholar
• Aytugrul v R (2012) 247 CLR 170
   Google Scholar
• Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD)
   Google Scholar
• Evidence Act 1995 (CTH)
   Google Scholar
• Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
   Google Scholar
• Evidence Act 2001 (TAS)
   Google Scholar
• Evidence Act 2008 (VIC)
   Google Scholar
• Evidence Act 2011 (ACT)
   Google Scholar
• Evidence Act (National Uniform Legislation) 2011 (NT).
   Google Scholar
• Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 201
   Google Scholar
• Holland v Jones (1917) 23 CLR 149
   Google Scholar
• Jackson v Macek [2015] FamCAFC 114
   Google Scholar
• Kelly v State of Queensland [2013] QSC 106.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsay v The Queen (2015) 319 ALR 207
   Google Scholar
• McGregor v McGregor (2012) 47 Fam LR 498
   Google Scholar
• Maloney v R (2013) 252 CLR 168
   Google Scholar
• Norrie v NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] NSWCA 145
   Google Scholar
• NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages v Norrie (2014) 250 CLR 490
   Google Scholar
• Scott v Harris, 550 U.S 372 (2007)
   Google Scholar
• State of Queensland v Kelly [2015] 1 Qd R 577
   Google Scholar
• Strong v Woolworths Ltd (2012) 246 CLR 182
   Google Scholar
• Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307
   Google Scholar
• Water safety signs and beach safety flags - Specifications for water safety signs used in workplaces and public areas (2008) ISO 20712-1, MOD.
   Google Scholar
• Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460
   Google Scholar