Secrecy and control orders: the role and vulnerability of constitutional values in Australia and the United Kingdom

Lynch, Andrew, Tulich, Tamara and Welsh, Rebecca (2013). Secrecy and control orders: the role and vulnerability of constitutional values in Australia and the United Kingdom. In David Cole, Federico Fabbrini and Arianna Vedaschi (Ed.), Secrecy, national security, and the vindication of constitutional law (pp. 154-172) Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9781781953860.00018


Author Lynch, Andrew
Tulich, Tamara
Welsh, Rebecca
Title of chapter Secrecy and control orders: the role and vulnerability of constitutional values in Australia and the United Kingdom
Title of book Secrecy, national security, and the vindication of constitutional law
Place of Publication Cheltenham, United Kingdom
Publisher Edward Elgar
Publication Year 2013
Sub-type Research book chapter (original research)
DOI 10.4337/9781781953860.00018
Open Access Status
ISBN 9781781953853
9781781953860
Editor David Cole
Federico Fabbrini
Arianna Vedaschi
Chapter number 10
Start page 154
End page 172
Total pages 19
Total chapters 19
Language eng
Abstract/Summary This chapter compares the role that constitutional values according individuals the right to a fair process when the state seeks to restrict their liberty have played in the development of terrorism control order schemes in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia. The respective schemes are similar and both illustrate constitutional values under considerable tension. However, there are salient differences in the ways those values have managed to provide some resistance to incursions on liberty. These different reactions stem from broader jurisdictional distinctions, including the manner in which those values are articulated in law, that affect the capacity of constitutional values to ameliorate, if not eliminate, measures that are hostile to them. The systemic features in question expose the vulnerability of constitutional values, normalizing government incursions into areas beyond national security. The difference in the way that constitutional values have been used to limit state excess in the two jurisdictions is stark. In the UK, procedural rights are expressly protected by both the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) (‘HRA’). Consequently, ‘control orders’ – which impose a range of diverse restrictions, including substantial periods of home detention, upon suspected terrorists, often on the basis of secret evidence not disclosed to the ‘controlee’ – have been subject to significant challenge in the UK’s domestic court system and the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’). Significantly bolstered by the decisions of the latter, UK courts have diminished the executive’s ability to rely on secret evidence
Q-Index Code B1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Book Chapter
Collection: TC Beirne School of Law Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Mon, 14 Jul 2014, 13:38:04 EST by Carmen Buttery on behalf of T.C. Beirne School of Law