Although the story which I have recounted, of AustLII, an Australasian adventure, is a most exciting and admirable one, there are many problems and I am sure these are fully recognised. The data in AustLII is only as good as the brain cells of the people who use it. A printout and hard copy are meaningless unless the substance is digested, understood and analysed in a way that is useful and legally relevant.
Nothing is worse, in a court of law, than suddenly being bombarded by a thousand undigested cases.
Bentham was not wrong. The danger of the common law methodology, from precedent to precedent, is that conceptual differences between circumstances of cases are papered over by superficial similarity between the facts. AustLII will give the lawyer and the public ready access to court decisions. But this will be no substitute for proper legal analysis. Indeed, it may be dangerous for people to assume that everything said in a reported judgment represents the law.