FloudJeanYoungWarren, Dangerousness and Criminal Justice (1981).
3.
TSL v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2006] 14VR109, 10.
4.
McSherryBernadetteKeyzerPatrick, Sex Offenders and Preventive Detention: Politics, Policy and Practice (2009); DouglasHeather, ‘Post-sentence preventive detention: Dangerous and risky’ (2008) 11Criminal Law Review, 854–873.
5.
See also LynchAndrew, ‘Terrorists and bikies: The Constitutional licence for laws of control’ (2009) 34(4) Alternative Law Journal337, but also see South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39.
6.
These being involuntary detention of the mentally ill and diseased, and the punishment of contempt and the breach of military discipline.
7.
Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration Local Government & Ethnic Affairs [1992] 176CLR1, 23.
8.
Ibid. The latter point refers to custodial remand, which will be discussed further in Part II of the article.
9.
Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [1996] 189CLR51, 21.
10.
Ibid, 22.
11.
Chu Kheng Lim, above n 7, 23.
12.
Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) [2004] 223CLR575.
13.
See generally McSherryKeyzer, above n 4.
14.
Lynch, above n 5, p. 238.
15.
GrayAnthony, ‘Standard of Proof, Unpredictable Behaviour and the High Court of Australia's Verdict on Preventive Detention Laws’ (2005) 10(1) Deakin Law Review177.
16.
McHughMichael, ‘Terrorism Legislation and the Constitution’ (2006) 28Australian Bar Review117, 122.
17.
Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] 219CLR562.
18.
McHugh, above n 16, 122.
19.
Ibid.
20.
Ibid, 123.
21.
BrownDavid, Materials and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process of New South Wales (4th ed, 2006), 1228.
22.
International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission [2009] HCA 49.
23.
Ibid.
24.
See also South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39 in respect of impermissibly making courts an instrument; and relatedly Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia; Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 41 in respect of efforts to sidestep obligations of natural justice and procedural fairness which are elements of judicial procedure and character.
25.
Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2006] QCA 324.
26.
Winters v Attorney General of New South Wales [2008] NSWCA 33.
27.
State of New South Wales v Brookes [2008] NSWCA 212.
28.
Winters, above n 26, 16, 67, 68, 98, 103, 127; Brookes, above n 27, 25.
29.
Brookes, above n 27, 30.
30.
HebentonBillSeddonToby, ‘From Dangerousness to Precaution: Managing Sexual and Violent Offenders in an Insecure and Uncertain Age’ (2009) 49(3) British Journal of Criminology343.
31.
See generally, above n 4.
32.
Tillman Communication, UNHRC, No. 1635/2007, 18 March 2010.
33.
Fardon Communication, UNHRC, No. 1629/2007, 18 March 2010.
34.
FreckeltonIanKeyzerPatrick, ‘Indefinite Detention of Sex Offenders and Human Rights: The Intervention of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations’ (2010) 17(3) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law345.
35.
WBM v Chief Commissioner of Police [2010] VSC 219, 49, 90.
36.
M v Germany [2009] ECHR, No 19359/04.
37.
Ibid, 90.
38.
Ibid, 104.
39.
Chu Kheng Lim, above n 7, 23.
40.
Cf the Australian case of Al-Kateb, above n 17, wherein any presumed time limit upon involuntary detention was rejected.
41.
Guzzardi v Italy [1980] ECHR, No. 7367/76.
42.
Ibid, 102.
43.
M v Germany, above n 36, 102.
44.
McHugh, above n 16, 122. Cf FrenchCJ in International Finance Trust [2009], above n 22, citing GummowJ in Nicholas v R [1998] HCA 9 that at least where question of judicial power is concerned, the requirement of examination ‘transcends “purely abstract conceptual analysis” and “inevitably attracts consideration of predominant characteristics”’, suggesting the importance, in other words, of substance over form or rhetoric.
