Simon Bronitt
University of Queensland
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Simon Bronitt.
Prometheus | 2006
Simon Bronitt; James Stellios
Abstract This article reviews the expansion of federal telecommunications interception powers, focusing on the watershed reforms enacted in 2006. The new statutory frameworks governing interception of ‘live’ and ‘stored communications’ are compared and contrasted, with a particular focus on their impact on human rights such as privacy and the fair trial. The article identifies significant regulatory loopholes and deficiencies in this new system, casting doubt on the usefulness of adopting a ‘balancing’ model to guide either macro‐level policy development or micro‐level decision‐making relating to individual warrants.
Common Law World Review | 2004
Simon Bronitt
This article explores from a comparative perspective some of the legal, evidential and procedural issues raised by undercover policing. It focuses on two of the more common, yet legally problematic, techniques of covert investigation: namely, entrapment and covert interviewing. The comparison draws on legal developments in Australia, Canada and Europe.
Criminal Law Forum | 1997
Simon Bronitt; Bernadette McSherry
T he common law of rape traditionally viewed the complainants reputation for sexual license and her sexual history as relevant both to her credibility as a witness and to the issue of consent) In Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the rules of evidence and procedure have been modified in recent years to restrict the way in which the defense can seek to undermine the credibility of
Archive | 2012
Tim Legrand; Simon Bronitt
The objectives of policing in a modern democracy are to uphold the rule of law and safeguard human rights (albeit the simplicity of these objectives belies the enormous political, normative, financial and administrative challenges the police face on a daily basis). In meeting these objectives, the police must constantly engage in a complex series of administrative manoeuvres to meet the evolving social, political, economic, demographic and technological demands of the state and the public. Against this imperative, it has become ever more important to refine and improve service delivery in terms of efficiency (which denotes the ratio of resources used to outcomes delivered) and — this is paramount — effectiveness (which describes how well the rule of law and human rights are upheld). The greater transparency that is ostensibly delivered by measuring police efficiency and effectiveness has been widely welcomed by the public and governments. In the most part, this is because, firstly, the public’s experience of crime is seen as the litmus test of the success of policing strategies, while, secondly, performance metrics provide some measure of the value or burden to the public purse. Yet efficiency and effectiveness are not comfortable bedfellows. A police force dedicated entirely to efficiency is not likely to be a wholly effective one, and vice versa. Thus, policing is a series of ongoing tradeoffs between tackling priorities and resource management.
Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal | 2007
Simon Bronitt; Dale Stephens
The use of lethal force to prevent terrorist attacks raises a range of legal, moral and policy challenges. This note examines recent legislative changes in Australia which empower the military to use lethal force against hijacked aircraft. These special powers are contained in Part III AAA of the Defence Act 1903 (Cth), which deals with the ‘call out’ of the military in aid of civil power. These powers to use reasonable and necessary force depart from the conventional criminal law doctrines of necessity and self defence, embracing a broader national security paradigm. This paradigm shift is reflected in the inclusion of powers to use lethal force to protect designated critical infrastructure and a special defence of superior orders. As the note concludes, these reforms reveal the growing influence of international law, particularly the law of armed conflict, on the development of domestic criminal law in Australia.
Archive | 2012
Simon Bronitt; Susan Donkin
The central hypothesis of this chapter is that the post 9/11 era has spawned a new hybrid form of terrorism regulation. The Oxford English Dictionary defines hybrid as follows: “Derived from heterogeneous or incongruous sources; having a mixed character; composed of two diverse elements; mongrel” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn, online version, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/89809, Accessed 4 Aug 2011). Hybrid for the purpose of our legal analysis is defined as a measure or law containing elements/characteristics of two previously distinct legal entities. The contention is not entirely novel. Control orders in the United Kingdom as hybrids between criminal and civil law, and melding powers of an executive/judicial nature. Equally, in the Australian context, scholars have identified the hybridisation of techniques of power, as well as the blurring of police and military powers, and crime and war. Hybrids are not however exclusive to terrorism law. Legal hybrids are also evident in fields such as drug law and public order, where strict liability, reverse onus clauses and civil standards of proof have been long applied. That said, the scale and extent to which regulatory efforts to counter terrorism in Australia span various modes of governance (criminal versus civil measures; judicial versus administrative power) makes legal hybrids a mode of regulation worthy of examination.
Chapters | 2006
Judith S Jones; Simon Bronitt
This challenging book takes a broad and thought-provoking look at the precautionary principle and its implementation, or potential implementation, in a number of fields. In particular, it explores the challenges faced by public decision-making processes when applying the precautionary principle, including its role in risk management and risk assessment. Frameworks for improved decision-making are considered, followed by a detailed analysis of prospective applications of the precautionary principle in a number of emerging fields including: nanotechnology, climate change, natural resource management and public health policy. The analysis is both coherent and interdisciplinary, employing perspectives from law, the social sciences and public policy with a view to improving both the legitimacy and effectiveness of public policy at national and international levels.
Archive | 2013
Susan Donkin; Simon Bronitt
The events of 11 September 2001 (9/11), as well as subsequent inter- national terrorist attacks in Bali, Madrid and London, have had a profound effect on political and law enforcement priorities in Australia. The 9/11 attacks led to significant increases of expenditure on counter- terrorism (CT), with the adoption of new coercive legislative powers, the reprioritising and reorganising of police and security agencies and an expanded capability of the military to take action against terrorist threats at home and abroad. This investment in CT has been staggering. For instance, it is estimated that the Australian Federal Government spent over
Journal of Australian Studies | 2013
Simon Bronitt; Wendy Kukulies-Smith
8 billion (AUD) on counter-terrorism efforts (excluding military spending) in the first five years post 9/11. By comparison, the US Department of Homeland Security expenditure between 2003 and 2011 totalled
Police Practice and Research | 2017
David Baker; Simon Bronitt
286,781 million (USD). Of course, the cost of the so-called ‘war on terror’3 is measurable not only in financial terms. CT legislation and policies have eroded many fundamental liberal ideals, principles and doctrines, spawning an extensive human rights critique which we do not intend to rehearse here. Notwithstanding the substantial human and financial cost of the ‘war on terror’, governments rarely justify the adoption or evaluate the effects of new CT initiatives by reference to scientifically informed research. The sensitive nature of CT casts a shroud of secrecy over the activities of those agencies responsible for developing and implementing new policy initiatives. Although the justifications for confidentiality in terms of national security are comprehensible, some have suggested that secrecy may also serve as a cloak for incompetence.