New Microsoft Word Document.docx

Alrighty, welcome back. As you could probably tell last time, or I could at least, last time I was sailing around, Turns out, I wasn\'t well. Couldn\'t keep my mind straight. That happens. Luckily we\'ve got plenty of time. Now I\'m going to repeat what I said last time, hopefully a little bit mo...

Alrighty, welcome back. As you could probably tell last time, or I could at least, last time I was sailing around, Turns out, I wasn\'t well. Couldn\'t keep my mind straight. That happens. Luckily we\'ve got plenty of time. Now I\'m going to repeat what I said last time, hopefully a little bit more clearly, and then we\'re going to round it up. I\'m going to summarize what we\'ve learned so far. I\'m going to try and put it in a context as to why this is important, why you want to know this, and how it is important for everything you do. Now, you\'ve got to remember the case examples that we put in in this particular class, obviously, will have to do with LEND, mainly because the main thing we put into a trust will be LEND, at least in the Papua New Guinea context, so it\'s not because it only applies to LEND. Okay, so when we are looking at these principles and we\'re looking at the cases, these are just examples. If I was you, and I would make that a practice as you go along, if there is something in your book where you\'re thinking, I\'m not sure I completely cut this section, how is it, I need some more information. Packly. You\'ve got Packly on your phone already, right? Like speed dial. Go in and just put in the section. You need to click Papua New Guinea and then search and then you click cases and then you just put in the section. Or in the case of this, you can put in paramouncy of justice or natural justice or principle of equity, whatever, whatever. And then you We get, the judges have to write up in their cases how they\'re applying the law, right? We have to do that, that\'s the Iraq method, no? So they will write and say, in this case the issue is, we\'ve got this person against that person, they say this, they say that, this is what we\'re discussing, no? Then they have to go through the rules, this is the rule we\'re discussing, this is how we applied it in the past, this is how we\'re gonna apply it in the future. Now if it is a national Supreme Court case, especially a Supreme Court, only goes there if it\'s really something we have to discuss, and we have doubts, and we have really big doubts. So then we say, okay this is a Supreme Court case, at least it\'s like reading a textbook. It\'s like reading an extra piece of material to say, all right, so And then you get a real-life example to go with it. So-and-so was mad at so-and-so, and they couldn\'t agree, and now it\'s got all the way. And this is how we\'re going to apply the law. You even get it with a story attached to it. And then they apply the law, and then they conclude something. So when you need more information about something, or you get really interested in something, which I hope you will because this is what you should be really really interested in for the rest of your life hopefully. Go for more, inform yourself and we are a storytelling country. I come from a storytelling country, an oral storytelling country. A good story is a good story and you are in the business of good stories. It will be for the rest of your life good stories. Sometimes it\'s on repeat you get the same story again and again and again and again from different people same soup but it\'s always a good story otherwise we don\'t go to court, no? So just think and just remember that these examples lie within land and trust and stuff because that\'s the next part of this but they apply everywhere. We already did one. Remember, you need to read. And we looked at, last time, this principle, no? The main principle is, the main rule is, that we have to maintain the power of legislation as a cheap and overriding source of law. It\'s a main principle everywhere in the world, no? that I should be able to figure out, if someone, if the police comes and says this is illegal, you need to pay a fine, you need to show me where it\'s written. Can\'t just come running and say, oh well, it\'s a main principle that this is how we say it is. Suck it up. No, like I am allowed to say, where does it say that? And there\'s lots and lots and lots of places where we lack law, I will tell you one where I am waiting for the day it\'s going to happen. My favourite is Trafford in this country. Port Moresby has an awful lot of roundabouts and I come from Scandinavia and in Scandinavia we don\'t use our indicators much, you\'re next to Australia, they use their indicators an awful lot when driving to roundabouts. When I\'m driving, my husband says, use your indicators. When he\'s driving, I\'m like, what? You\'re going straight. You don\'t need to use it. Anyway, we had an argument about it and we said, okay, well so what\'s the law? He He used to study law as well, he didn\'t finish, but that\'s not the point, he\'s still smart. We looked it up, guess what? Ain\'t no laws on roundabouts, do not have an accident in a roundabout, there is no law on roundabouts. If you get caught by a police officer saying, oh you have to do this, and you didn\'t indicate in the roundabout or whatever, whatever, it\'s like, tell me why it says so. So guess what, it doesn\'t. It doesn\'t. So then he can\'t charge you because you did nothing illegal because it\'s not written down. Does that make sense? Don\'t charge me with nothing that isn\'t written down. The reverse of that is that just because you don\'t know the rule does not mean I can\'t charge you. ignorance before the law does not mean you become innocent. But the main overruling principle is that they can\'t come running and say, we didn\'t like what you were doing. It needs to be the law. No? Needs to be the law. It\'s a main rule everywhere in the world. There\'s laws around roundabouts. You cannot change laying in a roundabout. And every time people do it, I get mad, but I cannot get more mad about it than as such, because there is no rule about that in Papua New Guinea because there is no law around about roundabouts. And it annoys the crap out of me. So anyone who knows anyone in traffic and policy, get them to write a law about roundabouts so that next time there\'s an accident they actually have a piece of legislation to get charged with it. Anyways, we looked at these four things. Now the first one, paramount sea of justice. Remember that we\'ve got a final time. We can say a whole law can be deemed invalid if it does not meet paramount sea of justice. it has happened. There can also be a section of the law. Now that\'s the first part. Then we\'ve got 41. The law stands, the section stands, it\'s just in that particular case, the final step, right? And then we got to my favorite, where we talk about natural justice, and that\'s the part where when we are applying all of these laws, duty to act fairly and be seen to act fairly. And remember to be seen to be acting fairly means not only are you always doing the right thing. When people ask you a question, you answer. And it\'s something where we still have a long way to go. It is the reason that when you look at the Transparency International, it\'s one of the many reasons, but it\'s a big reason as to when we are looking at the corruption index, the Transparency International\'s Corruption Index, and we are placed number 138 out of 160 something, it\'s because there is no transparency. And here it\'s scary. It\'s scary to ask questions. It\'s scary to go out and say, well, hang on, who registered that land to who? How come that land is yours? You can get killed for things like that. You can get killed for asking questions and that\'s, I mean, the ultimate, but you can definitely get fired. It\'s not an easy job to be a journalist, but at some point, we\'ve got to start using the tools that were given to us in our constitution. And I hope, this is my real hope, I hope that you will start using it. We just had it with the tablets, no? Seven million kilos spent on tablets for a census, and the press will ask, what happened? And they will get shut down, no? When they ask that question, the government has a duty, the highest obligation under law, report, they have a duty to answer. When 20 million kina is given to the DDA somewhere, we say that you have to produce an annual report. It is their duty to do so. When you go and say, how did you spend that money? It is their duty under the constitution to respond with a written report. When the provincial governments decide to do something or to not do something and people ask, why did you do this? Why did you not do this? It is their duty to respond. We are not exercising that part of our democracy very well. And at some point, and especially seen from the international community, the international community, they don\'t want to be the ones asking the questions, they want you to ask those questions. They want you to go and say what you want to know. That is what democracy is. Democracy is that people, all those people in all those positions, they work for us. And we should tell them what to do. We vote for them because they say they want to do something and then we hold them accountable. We say, okay, well you came to my village and you said you were going to build a bridge, where is it? You said we need better health care and better education. So what are you doing about it. Tell me what you\'re doing about it. We\'re not very good in Papua New Guinea at asking those questions. Maybe they knew it when they made the constitution and therefore we have this. This is so unique. We should be protected. We should be protected as citizens. This is our protection. It\'s not in my constitution, it\'s not in the Australian constitution, I\'m not protected. However, I live in one of the least corrupt countries in the world right now. We\'re number one, we tend to compete with New Zealand, sometimes we\'re number two. But it doesn\'t mean we\'re not corrupt, it\'s just we\'re least corrupt. It\'s not perfect, it just means we\'re one of the least corrupt countries in the world. And we are used to, I come from a place where I\'m used to, if I want to know, I ask. And it\'s at every level, municipal level, provincial level, state level. You\'re allowed to ask and you have the right to get an answer. So remember that from now on and all the way through law school. Remember to have that in the back of your head. that these principles are, they affect everything, not just trust flow, they affect everything. Okay? Point made? Point taken? Great, we\'re there. So we talked about paramount sea of justice and these are those cases where people have been promised something and then they can\'t deliver, you can read the cases yourself, you\'ve got harsh and oppressive acts, you put them up there, so that\'s in the particular case, you can suspend the law in a particular case. Of course it says in section 2 that the law stands above everything, yeah but in certain circumstances, we will take it out. And that was that. I try to create the visual of Titanic, Rose lying on the door. It\'s the last resort before drowning. When all else fails, we can pull this one out of the hat. I don\'t know how many of you have actually read your Constitution. You really should. And I know there\'s gonna be sections where, and I know you\'re thinking, I don\'t know what they mean by that. First time I read this one I was like, natural justice? Okay, so what does it mean? I needed a bit of context. When you\'ve read it, you will recognize it when you see it. And you will recognize how well written it is. So we\'ve got these natural justice and then section 60 says in the development of rules of the underlying law in according with number two that the rules are supposed to be above everything else particular attention shall be given to the development of a system of principles of natural justice. So not only do they have to do justice and act fairly when you create law in Papua New Guinea, you are supposed to write the laws so there is always the opportunity of getting clarity. So you can\'t write a law that says that everything we do from now on needs to be in secret commissions where no one has access to, unless there is a really good reason for it. Foreign security, military tactics, things like that we don\'t share, You\'re not allowed to know that and there\'s a good reason for it. So it has to be built in the principles of natural justice and of administrative law specifically designed for Papua New Guinea taking special account of the national goals and directive principles and of the basic social obligation and also a typically Papua New Guinean procedures and forms of organisation. So what they\'re saying is, so you know the goals and directives. You should know them by now. So we\'ve got number five, which is our favorite because it also always stirs up things. I\'ve forgotten to put this on silent and I\'ve forgotten to set the alarm so I don\'t talk till midnight. What\'s number 5? Can you remember? What\'s number 2? Equality. So when we write our laws, we have to remember that when we interpret harsh and oppressive acts, natural justice, We have to do it in the light, they\'ve even written that into it, number six, it has to be written in the light of the preamble, no? And the principles, basically the national code and directive principles. It\'s a really, really, really beautiful constitution that holds everything in check all the time and remind us throughout the document that we need to stay fair, we need to act fairly, we have to be honest, we have to be transparent, we have to leave room for the decisions to be made by the people on the ground. This is a law designed for the people on the ground. It is a democracy where everyone working on the local level has a say. Everybody\'s voice matters. You wouldn\'t build it in to say, we reinforce that it is according to the national goals and direct principles if it wasn\'t to be seen in the view of equality for everyone, despite gender and so on and so on and so on. Everyone has a right to be heard. It\'s written into your constitution in many places. It is very, very beautiful. In these cases, we see 59.2 applied, so in the first one, it was the responsibility of a minister to appoint people to sit on a land trust for land dedicated for public use. It\'s also the minister\'s responsibility to remove them. This guy, Gayle, he got removed and he wanted to know why. He didn\'t say that it was the wrong decision, he just said I have the right to know why I was removed and the court said yes. He also had the right to proper procedure. He couldn\'t just be told, you\'re no longer on this committee, you had to be advised in the proper way according to administrative law. And the next one, if a minister wants to change the purpose or use of public reserve land, so a land trust, in this particular case he dismissed the whole board of trustees, they have the right to be informed what? They didn\'t say, oh, we disagree with what you\'re doing, but what they said was you can\'t do it in secret. It is public land, you have an obligation to let the public know. Now, most likely in this case, it wasn\'t in accordance with the principle of this land trust. And we will get to what the principles are, but pay attention to this and pay attention to do it well. It means that when the landowners, so let\'s say we all know all the time, and I\'m not saying this is what is happening up there, but we all have issues with the water being turned off all the time, no? And part of that is because they say they are not being treated in accordance to what the agreement was, so that when they made the agreement, X amount of money was to be put into a land trust. Their land has been taken by the government and we\'ll get to that in this time as well, it\'s been expropriated. They\'ve taken it and said we\'re going to use it for the benefit of the public. Everybody needs water, you\'ve got the water but we need to share it to everybody. In return we\'re going to pay you. We\'re going to pay that money into a land trust and then you figure out how to divide it. Now they\'re saying that money hasn\'t come. But that land trust, someone is sitting as a trustee, remember we have the three people, so someone owns the land, now it\'s owned by the government, they\'ve left it, said here is the money, they trust fund, there\'s some trustees, they get to distribute and then there\'s some beneficiaries that benefit from that money. Those beneficiaries are saying, we\'re not benefiting nothing. We\'re just letting you take our water. We\'ve lost access to our own land and yet we\'re getting no compensation for it. You\'ve just taken over our land, nothing\'s coming back. Well, if you\'re not giving us what we were promised, we\'re going to turn off the water. Now, it\'s not as simple as that, but that is often what happens. Now, we will get to what the repercussions should be for the trustees. for not managing the trust properly. And we\'ll also get to what does it mean to write down something. So we say, this trust is for the benefits of these people because it\'s their land. Then you can\'t just change it and say, oh no, we want to make it for the benefit of something else. And then we\'re going to get rid of all the trustees because they know it\'s not supposed to be this way, but we\'re going to get our own people in and we\'re going again, this is what we\'re doing, we\'ve just changed it a little bit. So that\'s what happened in this case. And when they do do that, because it happens all the time, the trusts change boards and they change missions, which they shouldn\'t be able to. We have a right to question it, because otherwise how would we know? These are private things. No, it\'s not like it\'s public, they have to announce it in the newspaper. Now the last one, the inherent powers of the court to do justice, section 155.4. Now this is important to read this in the light of vote of no confidence and the history of vote of no confidence. When Supreme Court said to Parliament What you did in, I think it was 2010-2011, was illegal. You have to reinstate the former Prime Minister, and they didn\'t. We had a real conflict that we have still not resolved, and it keeps coming up again and again, and there keeps being MRP students that run around and want to write their MRP on it. It\'s been written, pick another subject, you can\'t keep rewriting the same MRP, just saying it now. now you\'ve heard it, you\'ve all checked in on it, but we debate who has the ultimate power, Parliament or Supreme Court, and it\'s right here. Both the Supreme Court and the National Court have an inherent power to make in such circumstances as seem to them proper, orders in the nature of prerogative writs and such other orders as are necessary to do justice in the circumstances of a particular case. So we\'ve got the case here as well, but what we have is the section that also underlines, underscores that it\'s Supreme Court that can make the decision. At the end of the day, who wins? Supreme Court. Now we talked about earlier, if we get this stalemate between the two and they won\'t budge, where is it supposed to go? We\'ve had this on the slide earlier. Where is it supposed to go from here? If they can\'t agree, the Law Reform Commission. Now that does not happen here. Again, this is a place where we\'ve talked about it, developing countries, we often have issues around our institutions, the strengths of our institutions. But it is in our constitution that Supreme Court can overrule Parliament. Now, I\'ve mentioned it, but can you remember why? What does that secure? It\'s a really important thing to understand, because once you understand why, you understand why it has to be this way and why Parliament has to bow to the will of the Supreme Court, why they put that handbrake into the legislation. It secures us against dictatorship. It secures our democracy. That That is the ultimate, the ultimate consequence. It means, it also secures us against corruption, no? It means we have impartial people, non-political, impartial lawyers that have become judges who have become Supreme Court judges because they\'ve shown that they are impartial, that they apply the law without any favor to themselves, that they will say, okay, to hear it no further, that this is not right. This section secures that parliament won\'t say, well, we\'re going to change it so that we don\'t have elections every five years. We\'re just going to put this guy in charge, and he can sit for the next two. Oh, we need to clean up this mess. We need to suspend democracy for a while, take over, have a military dictatorship for 10 years, and they\'ll clean up all this mess. That\'s a real thing. That\'s a real thing in our culture as well. Fiji. If you think that Fiji has been a happy democracy for a long time, just read up on their history. It\'s still an ongoing thing. And our founding fathers saw that and they understood that if we don\'t put in handbrakes that secure that you can\'t just get a dictatorship and come rolling in, or that we take tribal fighting to another level and we have provinces start fighting with each other and one wanting to take over over the others and being the main rulers. Can\'t happen. Because the courts, at the end of the day, are there to secure all of us. All of us. We are still struggling a bit with Parliament on that one. But you need to understand that this is where power lies and it\'s for the benefit of people. So the court has the power to review administrative decisions and we\'ve got all of these cases and it\'s been heavily debated but what you need to know is in the first one and just for just hang on we will repeat it with others and you will meet this throughout your career in the law school again and again and again. I\'m just supposed to introduce it to you, but if you\'re more interested in it really do dig into it because this is going to frame you for the rest of your career. Just remember they can\'t order people to do anything, they can stop them from doing something and they can take away a right and they can take away a piece of legislation and then it cannot be recreated. They can can change the direction of a decision and they can make deliberate changes to the law, for example by suspending the law. They can make declarations, they can go out and say we hereby declare that this is how it\'s going to be interpreted or you cannot interpret this in this way or they can use it to say this was repugnant. We now declare this as being part of the repugnancy doctrine. And in the last case, it also was declared that regardless of what they put in any other law underneath the Constitution, the Constitution is a superior law to a statute and any law, and any law must be read subject to the Constitution. So someone went to court and said, but it says right here. And they say, yeah, but it\'s in violation of the Constitution. How was I supposed to know that it says in the law yet but the constitution was still suspended? So, we have had these discussions and there is no doubt, there is no doubt. So these are two examples of how it\'s been used and I mean none of these made anyone happy, none of these made anyone happy at all, just imagine it was your family, it was you. The National Court of Papua New Guinea can order the sale of joint property when the order is necessary to do justice in the circumstances of the particular case. Now in this particular case, you had two people owning something together. They were no longer friendly. One wanted to buy one out, the other wanted to buy the other one out. it could also be inherited. You have inherited a house together with your brother. Who gets to own the house? Now, I sat in, I\'m interested in justice, what does it mean to do justice? In 2017, I sat in on every single village court session down in Hanover with an interpreter, because I don\'t speak Molto and that well, and so there was a lot of cases of families that were cohabiting in housing, but they did not like each other. And so they kept fighting over this house, and who was to have what section to their board when they would draw lines right down the center. And then when there was a dispute, then they would change the locks and lock each other up. The court can, if it ends up being too horrendous say, I don\'t care anymore. In this case, it was a business. We don\'t care anymore that you own this land, you own this business. You guys can\'t settle. You can\'t agree. So we now order it will be sold from underneath your feet. You lose everything. You\'ll get the money from it. But if you don\'t agree, it will be sold and you will be given what we can split into two, which is money. So, the ultimate consequence of not agreeing is that the court can order that you lose your land, that you lose your property, you lose your business. Papua New Guineans are like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, Catch them, catch them, it\'s my land. You can never take it away from me, but they can. And it is an incentive to say, figure it out. Don\'t kill each other. Remember that one. Repugnancy, you can\'t kill someone and then get away with it and now it\'s yours, that\'s the other one, no? When selling property, you\'re not only bound by good faith, clean hands, it\'s also your duty to take reasonable steps to unchain a true market price. Now when would you ever sell land at a lesser price? Why wouldn\'t you want to get the best out of it? It\'s when whoever you\'re selling to has your interest at heart, no? So now we\'ve got three brothers, they\'ve inherited, this is not the case, but it\'s a good case, got this land, brother one, two and three, brother one and two colludes, said listen I\'ll sell you my share for one kina, you now own two thirds, and he has nothing to be said, this dude here can say, that\'s not fair, It\'s not right. If you\'re going to sell land, sell it to the value. Or, two brothers, they\'ve inherited something, he says, oh, I don\'t care, whatever, whatever, they\'re going to sell it to a cousin over here, he\'s going to get it for this price, you get half, I get half, but in the meantime, he\'s got the business with the cousin\'s owner here, and they move on. And then this dude, it happens all the time. It is ordered by the Supreme Court that you can\'t just sell it at a lower price. Now, obviously, if it\'s in said banking group, it\'s probably a property that they had reprocessed. Now, how many cases do we hear about all the time that those that have their house on their mortgage, on their credit, they lose it because they don\'t pay their installments. and then they have this big massive loan, and then the bank sells it at a lower price to someone they like, and then they still have this massive loan that cannot be recovered. Does that make sense? So, if someone double deals you, they have to get a proper merit. So, this is the court saying, no, justice has to be served. you have to make an effort to get the best possible price. Now, overall, this is what it looks like. Remember, when you get to this section of answering, so if I have a case scenario where Dr. Jones has sold to Mr. Smith and this is happening, this is happening, instead of going straight, you can see it\'s this one. You can see it\'s this case we\'ve just had here. You can see that the scenario I\'ve set up for you is this case here, no? He sold it for much less than it was worth, no? Then you get to, okay, now I see the issue. The issue was sale of land, not enough money. Then you get to this section. If you go straight to here, you\'ve just lost half your points. You\'ve just lost half your points. Because the main rule is that the loan pervades. It\'s a contract. It\'s skilled. It\'s valid. Everyone\'s happy. What\'s it got to do with you? However, we\'ve got four exceptions and you list all four. In this particular case, I\'m going to go with the last exception and that exception is it is your opportunity to show me that you understand this section of the law. If you read this and go straight down here, you\'ve missed the opportunity to tell me everything there is here. Does that make sense? This full package shows me how you are supposed to think. This is what you\'re supposed to say in court. Your Honor, welcome to today\'s session. This is the issue in front of us. I represent this side. Now, for today, what we\'re going to look at is, I\'ll let you show the code you do understand. You have, you understand where we are in the world. And when you do that, you\'re also taking away the power of the opponent, no? We understand that the main rule is that the law will be the overriding power. However, we\'ve got a couple of handwritings that we apply in this particular area of law. And then you go through them very, very briefly, and then you say, for the purpose of this particular section, or this particular case, we\'re going to apply this piece of legislation, and under this particular, and then you go through what all the principles are, no? there are plenty of cases. We are gonna go to this particular case from 1990. If you go straight to that case, you\'ve missed the opportunity to share with the world how amazing you are and how well-studied and how absolutely thorough you have been in preparing your case. You show us everything. Does that make sense? And that is what we want to see, we want to see, and that is called arguing well, no? We\'ve gone through this, but now I\'m starting to make things glue a little bit together. Remember that we only use the principles if it\'s not written into law. If there is a law that covers the same issue, we will use the law. And then we have the exceptions. Remember the lady who wanted to get married? We know that customary law overrules common law, we also know that when common law and customary law are the same, we use common law. Why do we use common law? Because it\'s written down and we can read it. We also know that when they clash and we want to use customary law we have to say it in the beginning, and then we have the repugnancy doctrine. When we want to use customary law, it cannot be in conflict with the constitution and it cannot be inconsistent or incompatible with the ideas and statements, so that was the marriage of the widow and the ownership through land by war. You cannot own land by killing people and you cannot get ownership through war and you cannot kill someone just because they didn\'t pay you compensation, no? Even if it\'s custom and it\'s the right thing to do and your uncle say you have to do it, don\'t do it. Not allowed to. Summary, what do we know so far? Overall, how far have we come in this semester? We know that equity is a collection of principles, it\'s not written down in law, we know that it\'s still a formal legal tool, and we know this is going back, that it\'s behavioural sanctions, no? We know that when it comes to equity, it\'s about someone having done something. We\'ll get into, we\'re getting to the point now where we\'re going to talk about, so what are they, no? And I\'m just telling you, I\'ve already told you, we will talk about what those sanctions are, but it means something that has to do with behaviour. You start something, get moving, get that building done, or stop it, you\'re not allowed to build on those properties, so you either start something or you stop something, it\'s a behavioural section. Common law is repealed by equity, equity is repealed by custom, exception is the constitution and the recognition doctrine. This is what we\'ve learnt so far. Anyone who\'s lost, this principle right here, or these principles, this slide here, have it written down somewhere and remember it\'s the same principle in every single point of civil law. They always stand, always stand and this is where I want it to end today. We\'re almost done. The next thing we\'re going to be doing is we\'re going to be looking at the actual principles, no? We\'re going to start looking at clean hands which is the only one you\'ll remember for the rest of your life. Some of them, you\'ll go, yep, yep, but you\'ll never use them, but they\'re there. The thing to pay attention to, and again, I don\'t know how to say it clearly enough. None of them should be hard to understand in the sense it\'s all about what is right, what is fair, what is the right thing to do. Now, law should always be about that. They kind of put in this security, again, a handbrake, or what you\'d call it, that when we make a law, now you know that it has to be built into the law, it says so in the Constitution, no? Fairness has to be put into the Constitution, sorry, into the building of the law. That, in reverse, means when you\'re sitting as a lawyer, and someone comes and says this and this and this and this, apart from roundabout, this and this and this and this and this. You can almost also, if it is not, if it sounds really, really wrong, this is not right. Like I can tell, this is, you can be almost damn sure that there is a section on it somewhere. Law is not how. It is made by people for people. So if it\'s not right and it\'s not fair, like if you\'re using your proper ground principles of fairness, you can say, well, I\'m sure. And then you say to your client, I will look into this and then you start looking for it. But you can be almost certain that if it doesn\'t feel right, it\'s not right. And then if it\'s not written into law like roundabouts, then you can always go back to the principles of fairness. With roundabouts, it\'s really hard because do we do it one way or the other. Anyways, I just love these little peculiar things in\... Sorry, English is not my first language. Every now and then, I can\'t speak it. And I\'ve just spent seven weeks back home in my own country and then it\'s really, really distorted. I don\'t know how many of you know that feeling. You go somewhere else, you speak another language for a really long time and that it just won\'t come out. Anyways, what you should take away from this is that law is all about fairness. If it feels unfair, if your moral compass is going, hmm, this is not right, that is probably what the law says. Go look for it. If it\'s not there in the law, you\'ve got all of these handbrakes at your, right in front of you, available to you. It\'s right there for the taking. That is what we\'re doing in this class. And it gives you this particular topic, equity, gives you this sense that no matter what when you go into court, you can say it\'s written into the principles of the Constitution that just because something is law doesn\'t mean it\'s right. Just because something is law doesn\'t mean it\'s right. If we end up with an unfair result and your clients can suffer for it, fight. You can say we are not ending up, and I know the law says, but there are handbrakes in this particular situation. The intention of our system is that no one should go out of this room, from the court, go out of the court room without having a fair decision. So now that sits with you. Then it\'s a matter of how we see fit. And we\'ve got rules around that too. And it\'s never fair to kill someone. Alrighty? Any questions? Feeling comfortable with this? It\'s a basic principle. You\'ve just put a little basement layer of concrete into your lower personality. And now we\'ll start chipping away at what does it look like. Alrighty? It\'s a good week. And then we\'ve got this, the higher we are placed, the more humbly we should walk. Remember that. So that\'s from natural law as well. We have natural law in Papua New Guinea that just because something is right, or just law, does not mean it\'s right. Just because it\'s law doesn\'t mean that it leads to a fair result. Alrighty, just because we have played highly does not mean we have the right to just do whatever we want, no? See you next time.