Tag: criminal lawyer

Nyst Legal is extremely proud to announce that Jonathan Nyst has been named by Lawyers Weekly as Australia’s top young criminal lawyer under the age of 30.
No doubt the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is an avid student of history. Wherever it was that he learned it, he certainly seems to know that, in a tense game of Cold War diplomacy, the minacious art of brinkmanship can often be absolutely everything.
- Originally published by Ocean Road Magazine edition #45, Summer 2022. On the morning of Sunday, 13 August 1961, the citizens of the German capital, Berlin, awoke to an unfamiliar flurry of activity on their streets. During the night before, at the witching hour of midnight, under the orders of the East German Communist Party leader Walter Ulbrict, police and military units had begun sealing off the border between the Soviet-controlled east of the city and the west. By daylight, they had torn up the streets along the border, rendering them unusable, and lined them with barbed wire entanglements and fences that would ultimately stretch all along the 156 kilometres surrounding the three western sectors of the city.
In his massively successful, triple-platinum 2018 album "Astroworld," American rapper Travis Scott  got the party started with the high-charged rap anthem, ‘NO BYSTANDERS.’ It was an up-tempo call-to-arms, full of rage and rebellion. As it turns out, it may also have been a little prophetic.
Are police watching your Facebook, looking at your private health records, banking details, and email addresses? Are they modifying or copying your data and posts without your knowledge, or forcing you to hack others on their behalf? If they didn't have the power to before, they do now.
As the proud father, and principal of Nyst Legal, I am extremely chuffed to be able to announce that this week, for the second year in succession, my youngest son, and Nyst Legal Senior Associate, Jonathan Nyst, has been shortlisted as one of the finalists in the Criminal Law division of the national Lawyers Weekly 30 Under 30 Awards.
Some years ago I attended a breakfast at the Sheraton Hotel on the Gold Coast, at which the then highly-respected - and now much-maligned - Victoria Cross recipient, Ben Roberts-Smith, was the featured guest speaker. In his riveting address, Mr Roberts-Smith enthralled his audience with a detailed account of his service with the Australian Defence Force in Afghanistan, including the extraordinary events that saw him bestowed Australia’s highest award for valour and devotion to duty in the theatre of war. As anyone who has heard the war hero’s harrowing tale of combat and courage under fire could tell you, it’s a hell of a yarn. And boy, did he tell it well.
On 25 February 2021, the Federal Senate passed the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Media Bargaining Code) Bill 2021, (“the Code”), a controversial new law requiring certain digital platforms to pay a negotiated fee to eligible Australian news media businesses for the use of their digital content. Whilst many have praised the Code for standing up to omnipotent tech companies in the noble pursuit of fair market practices, others, including the tech companies themselves, have accused Australia of trying to break the internet.
The familiar legal adage "Hard cases make bad law" dates back at least as far as the early 1800s. It points to the danger of reacting to an extreme case by making a general, harsh and inflexible law to cover all cases. Wisdom dictates, the adage suggests, that laws are better drafted to target the average - and therefore more common – cases, rather than the extreme ones.
Between 1905 and 1970, generations of First Nations children were forcibly removed from their families, under a policy of so-called ‘protection.’ The 1995 Bringing Them Home report estimated that between ten and thirty-three per cent of all First Nations children were taken from their loved ones.
Confidential communications between lawyers and their clients are sacrosanct. They are subject to legal professional privilege, which means they cannot be disclosed by anyone – including the lawyer – to anyone else - including the government, the courts, the police, or anyone at all - without the client’s express authorisation. That principle has been around for about 500 years, and remains a fundamental tenant of our legal system. But it has, at times, been sorely tested.
Is it just me, or are we maybe making things just a little more complicated than they really need to be? In the context of litigation, lawyers sometimes need to access and disclose copies of their clients’ financial and other records held by various government bodies. That means getting the client’s written authority to access their records, and then getting in touch with the relevant government institution. That should be pretty simple, right?