Edited by Ben Saul
Control orders have been a striking part of the anti-terrorism response of the United Kingdom and Australian governments in modern times. They provide a means for the substantial restriction of an individual’s liberty on the basis that doing so will be likely to prevent the occurrence of a terrorist act. While posing a clear challenge to the presumption of innocence, the orders have been just as controversial for practical reasons as well as principle. The utility and effectiveness of these preventive orders have remained uncertain through legal challenges and independent reviews, and those questions persist about the similar Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures that replaced control orders in the United Kingdom in 2011. The orders in both countries have not just proved remarkably impervious to statutory repeal, but have in fact continued to expand in scope.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.