{"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.
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。