Bent into Security: Barrister Contribution to a Skewed Order in Two Terrorism Prosecutions in Australia

Willem de Lint, Wondwossen Demissie Kassa

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    This article explores two terrorism prosecutions ± R v. Benbrika and Ors and R v. Elomar and Ors ± to probe how Australian lawyers approach the integration of national security interests into the heart of public law. A brief background is provided followed by an analysis of how the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth), as amended, and the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Cth) deviate from the legal order to produce a ‘skewed blend’ between national security and criminal justice. We examine three ways in which barristers contribute to bending of process in counter-terrorism trials: accommodation to the pre-cautionary standard, the resetting of equality of arms expectations, and brokered agreements that depend on the deferential relationships within the court. Consequently, the moral asymmetry of terrorism is the backdrop for the ‘plausible legality’ of ‘just world’ derogations from liberal politics.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)169-199
    Number of pages31
    JournalJournal of Law and Society
    Volume44
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2017

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Bent into Security: Barrister Contribution to a Skewed Order in Two Terrorism Prosecutions in Australia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this