The new terrorists: the normalisation and spread of anti-terror laws in Australia

This article explores the dynamic by which once exceptional measures become normalised and then extended to new extremes. Abstract Since September 11, Australia’s federal Parliament has enacted a range of exceptional measures aimed at preventing terrorism. These measures include control orders, which were not designed or intended for use outside of the terrorism context. What has followed, however, has been the migration of this measure to new contexts in the states and territories, especially in regard to what some have termed the ‘war on bikies’. This has occurred to the point that this measure, once considered extreme, has become accepted as a normal aspect of the criminal justice system, and has in turn given rise to even more stringent legal measures. This article explores the dynamic by which once exceptional measures become normalised and then extended to new extremes. It explores these issues in the context of the role that constitutional values have played in this process

Kuczborski v Queensland and the Scope of the Kable Doctrine

This article considers the impact of the High Court's findings in 'Kuczborski v Queensland ('Kuczborski')' on the scope of the 'Kable' doctrine. In particular, 'Kuczborski' confirms that Kable cannot be relied upon as a source of implied rights protection, even when those rights relate to a fair trial. Nonetheless, the doctrine presents an important limit on governmental powers in the states and territories - provided that any 'Kable' challenge is focussed squarely on the 'essential aspect' of the doctrine, namely, the institutional integrity of state courts, and not on arguments pertaining to the severity of the laws or their impact on citizens