Sneaking here under the wire in fulfilment of my implied undertaking by dint of this category, three candidates briefly noted:
- R v Wood – the jury have now retired and been sent home for the weekend. Winston Terracini’s address and his neat 12 Reasons why Wood should be acquitted shows that forensic eloquence lives on, at least in addresses to the jury. Owing to renovations in the Supreme Court’s Queens Square premises, I witnessed part of this drama on my way to an altogether less momentous and wholly eloquence-free examination under the Corporations Act which was also being conducted in the Darlinghurst court house (much more atmospheric than the usual venue);
- A neighbours’ dispute leads to a damages award for vilification – as a gay man with problem dogs on both sides, my sympathies are all with the complainants on the barking front alone; and
- Adamson v Ede – the latest instalment in this saga.
Postscript I see now that Wilson & McCollum v Lawson & Anor  QADT 27, the neighbours’ dispute (which is about homophobic vilification) was picked up in the gay press a full day before the SMH picked it up. Text of the decision of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal is here.