Security and Fairness in Australian Public Law

B. Saul
{"title":"Security and Fairness in Australian Public Law","authors":"B. Saul","doi":"10.1017/cbo9781107445734.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Security concerns have always raised troubling rule of law questions about the weighing of competing public interests in national security, fairness to affected individuals, the accountability of administrative decision-makers, and public confidence in the openness of justice before the courts. This chapter examines two particular legal contexts in which national security issues have generated serious concerns about the fairness of administrative decisions and/or judicial review proceedings in Australia: (1) the diminution of procedural fairness to ‘nothingness’ in certain security decisions by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), and (2) the invocation of public interest immunity (also known as Crown privilege) to preclude the admission into evidence of security information. In either case the result may be that an affected person may not know the essence of the case against them, rendering them unable to effectively challenge the executive’s claims and its adverse administrative decisions. Independent merits or judicial review of decisions is also severely curtailed by the potential absence of relevant information or evidence, further degrading fairness and accountability. In this context, this chapter also reflects on the proper role of the judiciary in scrutinizing security issues and ensuring fairness. It argues that Australian courts have sometimes been unjustifiably deferential to the executive when security is invoked and have chosen (rather than being compelled by the legislature) to unnecessarily sacrifice fairness to individuals. This chapter contrasts the Australian approach with that taken in comparable liberal democracies where binding human rights principles apply to security decisions. It demonstrates how a human rights approach results in a more discriminate and proportionate weighing of competing public interests in security and fairness, in contrast to the blunt Australian approach which can extinguish fairness to protect security.","PeriodicalId":284892,"journal":{"name":"Political Institutions: Constitutions eJournal","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Institutions: Constitutions eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107445734.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Security concerns have always raised troubling rule of law questions about the weighing of competing public interests in national security, fairness to affected individuals, the accountability of administrative decision-makers, and public confidence in the openness of justice before the courts. This chapter examines two particular legal contexts in which national security issues have generated serious concerns about the fairness of administrative decisions and/or judicial review proceedings in Australia: (1) the diminution of procedural fairness to ‘nothingness’ in certain security decisions by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), and (2) the invocation of public interest immunity (also known as Crown privilege) to preclude the admission into evidence of security information. In either case the result may be that an affected person may not know the essence of the case against them, rendering them unable to effectively challenge the executive’s claims and its adverse administrative decisions. Independent merits or judicial review of decisions is also severely curtailed by the potential absence of relevant information or evidence, further degrading fairness and accountability. In this context, this chapter also reflects on the proper role of the judiciary in scrutinizing security issues and ensuring fairness. It argues that Australian courts have sometimes been unjustifiably deferential to the executive when security is invoked and have chosen (rather than being compelled by the legislature) to unnecessarily sacrifice fairness to individuals. This chapter contrasts the Australian approach with that taken in comparable liberal democracies where binding human rights principles apply to security decisions. It demonstrates how a human rights approach results in a more discriminate and proportionate weighing of competing public interests in security and fairness, in contrast to the blunt Australian approach which can extinguish fairness to protect security.
澳大利亚公法中的安全与公平
对安全的担忧总是引发令人不安的法治问题,如国家安全中相互竞争的公共利益的权衡、对受影响个人的公平、行政决策者的问责制以及公众对法院司法公开的信心。本章探讨了两种特殊的法律背景,其中国家安全问题引起了对澳大利亚行政决定和/或司法审查程序公正性的严重关切:(1)澳大利亚安全情报组织(ASIO)在某些安全决定中将程序公正性减少到“虚无”,以及(2)援引公共利益豁免(也称为王室特权)来排除将安全信息纳入证据。在任何一种情况下,结果都可能是受影响的人可能不知道针对他们的案件的实质,使他们无法有效地质疑行政人员的主张及其不利的行政决定。由于可能缺乏有关资料或证据,对决定的独立是非曲性或司法审查也受到严重限制,从而进一步降低公平性和问责制。在这方面,本章还反映了司法机构在审查安全问题和确保公平方面的适当作用。它认为,澳大利亚法院有时在涉及安全问题时,对行政部门表现出不合理的顺从,并选择(而不是受到立法机关的强迫)不必要地牺牲对个人的公平。本章将澳大利亚的做法与具有约束力的人权原则适用于安全决策的可比较的自由民主国家的做法进行对比。它表明了人权办法如何导致在安全和公平方面对相互竞争的公共利益进行更具歧视性和相称性的权衡,而澳大利亚的生硬做法则可能扼杀公平以保护安全。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信