Do Control Orders Facilitate The Rule Of Law? Essay

The Australian Criminal Justice system has an intricate and diverse structure that makes it one of the most unique systems in the world. The Commonwealth of Australia was approved by the British Parliament in 1900 and came into existence on January 1, 1901. The federal constitution combined British and American practices, with a parliamentary government, but with two houses - the popularly elected House of Representatives and Senate representing the former colonies. This began the start of a new era of policing. (Findlay, Odgers, Yeo). The Commonwealth of Australia is a federalist government composed of a national government and six State governments. There are nine different criminal justice systems in Australia - six states, two territories, and one federal. The eight States and Territories have powers to enact their own criminal law, while the Commonwealth has powers to enact laws. Criminal law is administered principally through the federal, State and Territory police. (Chappell, Wilson, Heaton). In this essay an in depth analysis of the Australian criminal justice system will be given, along with a comparison to the United States criminal justice system throughout the essay. As well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of the system and finally a brief summary of how the Australian criminal justice system structure could be improved to better suit the evolving society. Australia has a complex and very intuitive system of policing that

In 1978, on Monday the 13th of February, Australia faced what is believed to be its first experience of terrorism, when a bomb hidden in a bin outside the Sydney Hilton Hotel exploded, killing two council workers and a policeman (Cahill & Cahill, 2006). At the time, the hotel was hosting eleven heads of government who were in Sydney for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Cahill & Cahill, 2006). The Australian government reacted by mobilising the military, which came to be referred to as ‘Siege of Bowral’, that highlighted issues with the legislation that dealt with terrorism and how unprepared Australia was at responding to a terrorist event (Hancock, 2002). Over the following years, a range of legislation was enacted to handle matters associated with terrorism, laws such as allowing for defence to aid to the civil power, aviation and shipping safety, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, surveillance and intelligence services (Hancock, 2002).

What does the word tyranny mean? It is an aggressive form of government that is strict. An example of this is a dictatorship which is absolute power over all people. The big question is how does the constitution guards against tyranny? The answer of this big question is federalism,separation of power, checks and balances, and small state big state. In the following paragraphs I will describe each important term in detail.

Tyranny is cruel and oppressive government or rules this is a king or dictator it can be one person or group of people.In Philadelphia 1787 James Madison, one of the 55 framers of the constitution, was nervous that in creating a new government one person or group of people could gain too much power. How did the basic framework of American guard against one person or group of people going to much power?The constitution guarded against tyranny in two ways, checks and balances, and federalism.

The opportunity to contribute to society are many and varied and include positions within defence or local community protection. This provides the opportunity to work in a field which promotes and supports the community and the Nation’s interests. In regard to working within ASIO, the focus is on analysing and reporting prospective threats, resulting in the production of protective security measures, to ensure the safety of Australia’s communities, people and assets. In the words of Pietsch and McAlister “Australia has been relatively immune from acts of terrorism” (Juliet Pietsch & Ian McAllister, 2012). “I want Australians to be aware that a terrorist incident on our soil remains likely but also that Australians should be reassured our security agencies are working diligently and expertly to prevent that happening” (Malcolm Turnball, 2015). Terrorism is an increasingly greater threat in the 21st century, and it is clear from these statements that ASIO has an important role to play in ensuring the security of Australian

Since the 9/11 attacks on U.S. soil at the outset of the twenty-first century, western states have enacted vast changes in the way that they deal with terrorist groups and terrorists. Due to the fact that civilian casualties have escalated as a result of terrorist acts, western polities have steered away from a punitive paradigm that criminalizes terrorist acts and aims at penalizing individuals who perpetrate such acts. Instead, there has been a dramatic shift towards a preventative approach in which terrorist acts are prevented prior towards any manifesting and inflicting harm on innocent victims. In Jonathan Shapiro’s “An Ounce of Cure for a Pound of Preventive Detention: Security Certificates,” published in Queen’s Law Journal in 2008, discusses the paradigm shift in Canadian foreign policy as it pertains to terrorism through a cogent discussion of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The IRPA authorizes the government to detained suspected terrorists amidst deportation proceedings. However, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision that the Charter was provisionally violated by certain provisions of the Act, which is the central point of contention Shapiro has in this article. Indeed, he critiques the approach of the Supreme Court in the Charkaoi v. Canada decision, positing that the security certificate process violates several of the liberty and equality

Australia’s first anti-terror laws were enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 (Prof Andrew Lynch 2010). In recent years, increasing Australian involvement in international conflict has seen these laws shift to accommodate alarming trends in home grown terrorism (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2014). Sydney’s 2014 terror raids prompted the most significant changes to Australia’s counter terrorism legislation in the last decade (Commonwealth of Australia Department of Defence 2015). Amendments granted law enforcement and intelligence agencies new and somewhat controversial powers, in the name of national security.

3) “It was not until after 9/11 that democratic countries introduced legislation that criminalised an ‘act of terrorism’” (O’Hare, 2011) To aid police in their fight against terrorism, the Australian Government has made a significant number of changes to current legislation, as well as introducing a number of new counter-terrorism laws to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorist threats. “The states and territories have referred legislative powers to the Commonwealth to allow the creation of a single set of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code).” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) These amendments, and additional legislation, have been instrumental in allowing law enforcement to respond to terrorist threats. In addition to new criminal offences, new powers include; more effective detention and questioning powers; the ability to declare terrorist organisations illegal; and the ability to exercise more control over people’s movements. The new counter-terrorism “offences are aimed at individuals who engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or provide support for terrorist acts.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) Other tools within the Criminal Code available are ‘control orders’ and ‘preventative detention’. “Control orders are protective measures that can restrict a person’s movements and activities.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 57) Whereas

Law enforcement response to counter-terrorism fundamentally changed as a result of the unprecedented events of September 11th 2001 in New York and Washington (Kaldas, 2002, p61-62). This essay will examine how law enforcement has evolved in response to the changing nature of terrorism, with an emphasis on how this has impacted Australia. An analysis of arrests and subsequent

As the person conducting an impact assessment of their use, one would say that the legal problem that are face from the Control Orders is the human rights organization and freedom rights of the people. Another problem that the Control Orders face is the terrorist recruiters use young kids to carry out the terrorist attacks, so it would be harder to incarcerate. The Control Orders would be useful against suspected terrorist, “being in certain areas or leaving Australia, owning or using certain things, accessing certain forms of technology, including the internet, communicating or associating with certain people and carrying out certain activities, including work” (Department, 1995).

Terrorism has never been in the States; only in third world countries. Since 9/11-2001 is has been a reality and ongoing nightmare and hit close to home. The attack on the World Trade Centers in New York was a wakeup call. United States has been on high alert ever since, waiting for the next possible Terrorists attack. This paper will explain why terrorism is a law enforcement concern as well as how terrorism is considered a crime. At last the paper will state some recommendations that the American Criminal Justice should do, to better prepare for future crimes.

‘…If you maltreat a penguin in the London Zoo, you do not escape prosecution because you are the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury.’

The idea of human dignity has been remarked and articulated in a number of the jurisprudence works of the mid-twentieth American legal philosopher, Lon L. Fuller. The Morality of Law, for instance, provides a valuable snapshot of Fuller’s preliminary sense of what his idea on human dignity might entail. In the core of his argument of legal morality, Fuller proposes that any neglect of eight principles of legality, which constitutes the internal morality of law, is not just only render the rational ground to obey the law and destroy the trusteeship between lawgiver and subject, but it further condemns and humiliates the dignity of person or human being as a free and responsible agent, self-determining center of action, and that they possess inherent dignity. In other important text, Fuller explicitly announces that the value of human dignity, over other extra-legal values, that must embodied within the structure of legal order. After he offers a long discussion of human capacity of action and communication under the forms of order, he writes: “ there is, therefore, in an ordered system of law, formulated and administered conscientiously, a certain built-in respect for human dignity, and I think it is reasonable to suppose that this respect will tend to carry over into the substantive ends of law.” Thirdly, in his draft essay Means and Ends, which can be considered both as an introductory of Fuller’s eunmoics theory of social order and Fuller’s reflection on the

The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.

Bachmann, S. (2012). Bankrupting terrorism: The role of US anti-terrorism litigation in the prevention of terrorism and other hybrid threats: A legal assessment and outlook. The Liverpool Law Review, 33(2), 91-109. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1007/s10991-012-9115-7