司法公开、法院封闭和宪法

Kieran Pender
{"title":"司法公开、法院封闭和宪法","authors":"Kieran Pender","doi":"10.38127/uqlj.v42i2.7355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Open justice is an essential feature of the judiciary, in Australia and elsewhere. The principle has constitutional salience, as an element of judicial power in Chapter III of the Constitution. Yet open justice is not absolute. In recent years, the tension between open justice and national security has been a matter of public controversy in Australia, as a result of the Bernard Collaery, Witness K and Witness J prosecutions, which have all been shrouded in secrecy. Reconciling open justice with the confidentiality required to protect national security is a common challenge for many jurisdictions. This Article compares the Australian approach with the United Kingdom and Canada. It argues that Australian law and practice in relation to protecting open justice in the national security context is underdeveloped. Drawing on the British and Canadian experience, the Article proposes methods to better balance these competing interests in Australia, in a manner which would reflect emerging constitutional principles.","PeriodicalId":83293,"journal":{"name":"The University of Queensland law journal","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Open Justice, Closed Courts and the Constitution\",\"authors\":\"Kieran Pender\",\"doi\":\"10.38127/uqlj.v42i2.7355\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Open justice is an essential feature of the judiciary, in Australia and elsewhere. The principle has constitutional salience, as an element of judicial power in Chapter III of the Constitution. Yet open justice is not absolute. In recent years, the tension between open justice and national security has been a matter of public controversy in Australia, as a result of the Bernard Collaery, Witness K and Witness J prosecutions, which have all been shrouded in secrecy. Reconciling open justice with the confidentiality required to protect national security is a common challenge for many jurisdictions. This Article compares the Australian approach with the United Kingdom and Canada. It argues that Australian law and practice in relation to protecting open justice in the national security context is underdeveloped. Drawing on the British and Canadian experience, the Article proposes methods to better balance these competing interests in Australia, in a manner which would reflect emerging constitutional principles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v42i2.7355\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The University of Queensland law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38127/uqlj.v42i2.7355","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在澳大利亚和其他地方,公开司法是司法的一个基本特征。该原则在宪法第三章中作为司法权的一个要素,具有宪法意义。然而,公开的司法不是绝对的。近年来,公开司法与国家安全之间的紧张关系在澳大利亚一直是一个公众争议的问题,原因是伯纳德·科勒里(Bernard Collaery)、证人K (Witness K)和证人J (Witness J)的起诉都笼罩在秘密之中。协调公开司法与保护国家安全所需的保密是许多司法管辖区面临的共同挑战。本文将澳大利亚的做法与英国和加拿大的做法进行比较。它认为,澳大利亚在国家安全背景下保护公开司法的法律和实践是不发达的。根据英国和加拿大的经验,本文提出了在澳大利亚更好地平衡这些相互竞争的利益的方法,其方式将反映新出现的宪法原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Open Justice, Closed Courts and the Constitution
Open justice is an essential feature of the judiciary, in Australia and elsewhere. The principle has constitutional salience, as an element of judicial power in Chapter III of the Constitution. Yet open justice is not absolute. In recent years, the tension between open justice and national security has been a matter of public controversy in Australia, as a result of the Bernard Collaery, Witness K and Witness J prosecutions, which have all been shrouded in secrecy. Reconciling open justice with the confidentiality required to protect national security is a common challenge for many jurisdictions. This Article compares the Australian approach with the United Kingdom and Canada. It argues that Australian law and practice in relation to protecting open justice in the national security context is underdeveloped. Drawing on the British and Canadian experience, the Article proposes methods to better balance these competing interests in Australia, in a manner which would reflect emerging constitutional principles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信