No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

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.

This paper examines three recent high-profile cases involving gifts and benefits to police. The cases, two from Australia and one from England, involved both frontline officers and senior managers. The analyses track the unfolding scandals, and how they were investigated and evaluated by official inquiries. In two of the cases, gifts and hospitality were enmeshed with wider forms of corruption. The official inquiries identified how gratuities undermined public confidence in the impartiality of police, and how inappropriate gifts and benefits were facilitated by liberal policies and deficient leadership. The paper concludes by arguing that police need to adopt a highly restrictive policy on gratuities, and follow through with effective forms of compliance management.

No abstract

I would like to thank Michael Potts and Zoe Brereton for research assistance. 2 Under its parent Act, The Law Commission (England and Wales) was tasked with keeping the law under review 'with a view to its systematic development and reform, including in particular the codification of law':

Introduction: The Balancing ModelMuch of the debate post-September 11 (9/11) about expansion of state power to combat terrorism has been framed as striking a balance between security and liberty. 1 The 'balancing approach', whereby security is reconciled with respect for fundamental liberal rights and values, has been very influential in counter-terrorism law reform in Australia. 2 As the former federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock pointed out:We don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world of trade-offs. And now we live in a world where we must accept the costs associated with protecting ourselves from terrorism … There will always be a trade-off between national security and individual rights. The task of government is to recognise these trade-offs and preserve our security without compromising basic rights and liberties. 3