Malcolm Thorburn

Nicholas Petrie and Julian R. Murphy have done Australia and the world a great service in putting together a terrific volume of essays on Public Law and Criminal Law in Australia. The volume is packed with insights into the myriad complex ways in which public law norms constrain the operations of the criminal law. Its chapters cover the application of public law norms of due process and human rights to such diverse matters as judicial review of criminal proceedings, the application of human rights to independent public prosecutors, privacy and the public interest in whistle-blower legislation. It also includes illuminating discussions of core questions of constitutional law concerning the nature and constitutional limits of punishment and questions of federalism in Australian criminal law.

Chris Carr SC and Minh-Quan Nguyen

Public Law and Criminal Law in Australia deals with overlaps and intersections, in more ways than one.  For one thing, the volume methodically interrogates the relationship between the fields of ‘public law’ and ‘criminal law’, highlighting the connections and commonalities (and some tensions) between them.  For another thing, the volume sits at the intersection of scholarship and practice, as reflected in the varied backgrounds of its editors and contributors.

We wish to focus on two contributions that the volume makes to the understanding of criminal law and public law.  First, it provides a theoretical treatment, and practical illustrations, of how criminal law forms part of Australian public law.  Second, it highlights that criminal law serves as an important theatre for ongoing debates about public law doctrine and the development of that wider body of law.  In both respects, it is of real practical significance to those who practise in these fields.

Gabrielle Appleby

Nicholas Petrie and Julian R Murphy’s recently released edited collection, Public Law and Criminal Law in Australia: Overlap, Intersection and Inconsistency (Federation Press, 2025) invites us to consider the relationship between ‘public law’ and ‘criminal law’—whether that is in terms of overlap, intersection or inconsistency. In doing so, the volume both provides important consideration of these issues in the Australian context, as well as lays an excellent foundation for a rich vein of future scholarship.

Nicholas Petrie and Julian R Murphy

The thing we most wanted to achieve in collecting a series of chapters on Australian criminal law and public law was to start a conversation, or many conversations really. We wanted to start conversations between the practitioners and academics in these two areas of law that have traditionally been practiced and studied separately. We also wanted to start a conversation between the bodies of law themselves – to draw attention to the points at which legal principles in each of these areas overlap, intersect and are in tension. We thought we had gone a good way to achieving this in the book itself, which is comprised of chapters by academics, practitioners and statutory office holders spread across the field of criminal and public law.

Cherry Tang and Eden Blair

In June 2024, the High Court handed down its decision in R v Hatahet [2024] HCA 23 (HCA Judgment) on appeal from the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) decision in Hatahet v R [2023] NSWCCA 305 (CCA judgment). The High Court unanimously held that a reduced chance of parole as a result of the operation of s 19ALB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (Crimes Act) cannot be taken into account in sentencing. Even though terrorist offenders are extremely unlikely to be released on parole, sentencing courts cannot take this into consideration when setting the length of the head sentence and the non-parole period. Section 19ALB requires exceptional circumstances be proven before someone who has committed a terrorism offence can be granted parole. This holding overturned the CCA decision that a sentence served with almost no chance of parole constitutes a more onerous period of imprisonment and, in this case, warranted a reduction in the head sentence.

Samuel Naylor

On 19 December 2023, Abdul Nacer Benbrika was released from custody after being detained for the best part of 20 years. He was released after Hollingworth J of the Victorian Supreme Court made orders replacing a continuing detention order (CDO) with an extended supervision order (ESO) pursuant to div 105A within Pt 5.3 of the Criminal Code (Cth) (Code). Division 105A is a Commonwealth legislative scheme of ‘post-sentence orders’ (PSOs) whose object is:

… to protect the community from serious Part 5.3 offences by providing that terrorist offenders who pose an unacceptable risk of committing such offences are subject to [a CDO or ESO].

Joseph McDonald

On 1 September 2021, the High Court handed down its judgment on a novel question of statutory interpretation in Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 [2021] HCA 26 (DPP Reference No 1). The question for the Full Court was the interpretation of s 17 of the Crimes Act 1958 ...

Anton Moiseienko

In 2020, the Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) held an inquiry into the potential introduction of corruption and human rights sanctions, also referred to as ‘Magnitsky’ sanctions. The inquiry culminated in a report calling on the government to ‘enact stand alone …