Antipodean perspectives on preventive justice: The High Court and Serious Crime Prevention Orders

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Griffith Law Review Pub Date : 2021-04-03 DOI:10.1080/10383441.2021.1925411
Tamara Tulich, S. Murray, Natalie Skead
{"title":"Antipodean perspectives on preventive justice: The High Court and Serious Crime Prevention Orders","authors":"Tamara Tulich, S. Murray, Natalie Skead","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2021.1925411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Preventive justice as a field of scholarship emerged in response to the proliferation of preventive measures in the later part of the twentieth Century, and the threat preventive measures pose to individual liberties. Collectively, this scholarship seeks to articulate principled limits on state action to prevent harm. However, preventive justice remains an emergent field of scholarship, with many outstanding questions about its scope, utility and the expediency of its normative project. In the decision in Vella v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2019) 93 ALJR 1236, the High Court, for the first time, engages with preventive justice scholarship. This article examines how the distinctions between the majority and minority treatment of the Kable principle in Vella illuminate many of the debates and challenges raised in the literature on preventive justice, the implications of this division across the Court and what it means more broadly for preventive justice in Australia.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2021.1925411","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Griffith Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2021.1925411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Preventive justice as a field of scholarship emerged in response to the proliferation of preventive measures in the later part of the twentieth Century, and the threat preventive measures pose to individual liberties. Collectively, this scholarship seeks to articulate principled limits on state action to prevent harm. However, preventive justice remains an emergent field of scholarship, with many outstanding questions about its scope, utility and the expediency of its normative project. In the decision in Vella v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2019) 93 ALJR 1236, the High Court, for the first time, engages with preventive justice scholarship. This article examines how the distinctions between the majority and minority treatment of the Kable principle in Vella illuminate many of the debates and challenges raised in the literature on preventive justice, the implications of this division across the Court and what it means more broadly for preventive justice in Australia.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预防性司法的反波德视角:高等法院和严重犯罪预防令
摘要预防性司法作为一个学术领域,是在20世纪后半叶预防性措施泛滥以及预防性措施对个人自由构成威胁的情况下出现的。总的来说,这项研究试图阐明国家防止伤害行动的原则限制。然而,预防性司法仍然是一个新兴的学术领域,其规范性项目的范围、效用和便利性存在许多悬而未决的问题。在Vella v Commissioner of Police(NSW)(2019)93 ALJR 1236的裁决中,高等法院首次参与了预防性司法奖学金。本文探讨了Vella案中对Kable原则的多数人和少数人待遇之间的区别如何阐明了关于预防性司法的文献中提出的许多辩论和挑战,这种划分对整个法院的影响,以及它对澳大利亚预防性司法更广泛的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Reconceptualising the crimes of Big Tech The current legal regime of the Indonesian outer small islands Mainstreaming climate change in legal education Skeletons in the cupboard: reading settler anxiety in Mabo and Love Post-enlargement (free) movement in the EU: who really counts as EU CITIZEN? understanding Dano through the lens of Orientalism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1