Juris Doctor Student
Tamara Long
Juris Doctor Candidate | Legal Researcher | Legal Analyst
Research focus
- Civil Procedure
- Appellate Practice
- Procedural Fairness
- Access to Justice
About
Meet Tamara
Tamara is a Juris Doctor student with a strong academic record and a research focus on civil procedure, appellate practice, and access to justice.
Recent writing
View all →Legal Validity, Institutional Practice, and Justice: In-Class Exercises in Legal Theory
This paper comprises three in-class exercises examining core debates in legal theory through applied problems. The first considers whether a formally valid but morally abhorrent statute can count as law, analysing positivist, interpretive, and constitutional safeguards against unjust enactments. The second explores the divergence between legal text and enforcement practice through a speed-limit hypothetical, comparing positivist, realist, and natural law accounts of legality and judicial discretion. The third assesses theories of distributive justice, applying Rawls’s principles to comparative scenarios and evaluating Nozick’s objections to taxation and state redistribution. Together, the exercises illustrate how legal theory informs institutional practice, statutory interpretation, and the moral limits of legal authority.
Published 1/19/2026
Protecting the Child, Not Punishing the Parent: Why Risk, Not Redemption, Must Guide Parenting Orders
This submission is a fictitious set of oral submissions prepared for academic and educational purposes. It models how a court may approach final parenting orders under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) where issues of family violence, substance misuse, and ongoing risk to a child are raised. The submission demonstrates the application of statutory principles, evidentiary reasoning, and case authority in support of sole parental responsibility, continued residence with a protective parent, and supervised time where rehabilitation is unproven. It is intended as an example of advocacy structure and legal reasoning, not a reflection of any real parties or proceedings.
Published 1/19/2026
Speech Sample: The Silenced Majority: Why Self-Representation Should Not Mean Self-Sabotage
This speech examines the systemic disadvantages faced by self-represented litigants within Australian courts and challenges the assumption that procedural equality delivers substantive fairness. Drawing on legal scholarship, empirical research, and lived experience, it argues that court procedures, professional norms, and institutional expectations operate as barriers rather than safeguards for those without legal representation. The speech contends that self-representation is not a meaningful choice for most litigants but a structural consequence of an inaccessible justice system, and calls for procedural redesign, professional accountability, and a re-thinking of judicial neutrality to ensure that access to justice is real rather than illusory.
Published 1/19/2026
Writing Sample: Nuclear Testing, Environmental Harm, and Human Rights: State Responsibility and Accountability Under Contemporary International Law
This paper examines the international legal implications of state-conducted nuclear testing that causes environmental damage and the displacement of an indigenous population. Using a hypothetical case study, it analyses the application of international human rights law, nuclear disarmament treaties, and customary environmental law, and considers the mechanisms available to hold a state accountable. It argues that contemporary international law increasingly recognises environmental harm as inseparable from human rights violations, giving rise to obligations of reparation and guarantees of non-repetition.
Published 1/19/2026
Doctrinal Legal Research and Legal Realism in Legal Scholarship
This paper compares doctrinal legal research and legal realism as methodologies in legal scholarship. Doctrinal research emphasises structured analysis of statutes and case law to promote certainty and coherence, while legal realism challenges formalism by highlighting the influence of social, political and personal factors on judicial decision-making. The paper examines the strengths and limitations of each approach and argues that a nuanced understanding of law requires engagement with both. It concludes that combining doctrinal analysis with realist insight provides a more accurate account of how law operates in theory and in practice.
Published 1/19/2026