Antipodean Perspectives on Preventive Justice: The High Court and Serious Crime Prevention Orders

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Citations (Web of Science)

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)211-239
Number of pages29
JournalGriffith Law Review
Volume30
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2021

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Antipodean Perspectives on Preventive Justice: The High Court and Serious Crime Prevention Orders'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this