The Elgar Encyclopedia of Crime and Criminal Justice stands apart as the most comprehensive global reference title in its field. New entries will be added every month and PDF downloads will be available once the Encyclopedia is complete.

As first responders, police officers are routinely called upon to deal with a wide range of crime, public disorder and social problems. The occupational focus on low-level street crime and order maintenance led Robert Reiner to describe policing as a form of ‘moral street-sweeping’. Police interactions with persons with mental illness (PMI) have intensified following de-institutionalisation and community-based care in recent decades. It has reached the point in many jurisdictions that general-duties policing may be viewed as a form of ‘mental health street-sweeping’. Part I of the chapter examines the range of coercive powers available in Australia to police PMI. Moving beyond the ‘law in books’ to evaluate the ‘law in action’, Part II examines how the police interactions with PMI are governed by specialised intervention programmes that embed ‘therapeutic partnerships’ between police, ambulance and mental health services. Part III outlines the deficiencies of policy development which is crisis-driven, in favour of an holistic model based on ‘systems thinking’, an approach where policy lessons drawn from adverse incidents serve restorative rather than retributive ends, and reforms are guided by principle and informed by the best available evidence.

Our ambition is to examine the legal responses to cartel wrongdoing, drawing insights and parallels with new and emerging models of corporate responsibility applied to deal with other white-collar crimes. Our article traces how traditional legal binaries — public versus private law, and criminal versus civil law — are being increasingly challenged by legal hybridity, and the emergence of a range of new regulatory tools that meld together a wide range of purposes including prevention, deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, restorative justice, restitution and compensation.

This chapter examines how Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPA) schemes support or subvert conviction-based paradigms of criminal justice, and how instruments like the DPA are changing the role of prosecution agencies within the system. The DPA joins a crowded field of innovative regulatory tools: civil penalties, enforceable undertakings, as well as non-conviction freezing and confiscation orders are now available to combat with a wide range of criminality, both individual and corporate. The chapter examines how the DPA, though novel in form, is part of a much longer trajectory of hybrid justice, one which melds a range of purposes and functions, deterrent, punitive, incapacitative, preventive, restorative and restitutionary. It explores how negotiating justice using new hybrids, such as DPAs, poses new challenges for those prosecutors and regulators dealing with corporate crime and misconduct. The chapter shows that legal hybrids have been normalised in many modern legal systems.

This important new book is a successor to Balancing the Scales, published 20 years ago. Revisiting and extending beyond the themes in the previous collection, the authors offer new ways of thinking about the wrongs of rape and the responses of the criminal justice system. A unifying theme of this book, which meld critical and feminist legal analysis, is contestation. Contestation, the authors contend, is part of the DNA of rape law. Examining the principal reforms of rape law – relating to consent, intimate partner rape, legal responsibility (both individual and institutional), trial and sentencing processes – the authors build to their conclusion that contestation is a battle between realities, perceptions and attitudes. It is of course a forensic battle anchored to a question of ‘(un)reasonableness’, whether it relates to the actions, beliefs or decisions of the accused, the victims, the police, lawyers, judges and jurors. Over the past two decades, the field of rape law has been subject to much academic debate, policy development and law reform. While there has been some progress, victims’ experience of the law and legal process often constitutes a form of secondary trauma. To contextualise the state of the law and to assess the impact of ‘feminist’ reforms, the authors devise a series of hypothetical cases to evaluate the legal reasoning of lawyers and judges at various stages of the trial and sentencing process. These accounts encourage readers to test their own and the law’s normative ideals of gender justice relating to equality, privacy, fairness and human dignity. The authors conclude that fundamental concepts of rape law – consent, responsibility, ‘just’ punishment – demand further contestation. This book provides insights and strategies for contesting law’s ‘truths’ in relation to rape in its many and varied manifestations.

Peter Alldridge's assessment formed part of a wider agenda of relocating criminal law, and in relation to bribery and other financial crimes such as insider trading, he proposed reconceiving the field as one of 'crimes against the market'. This chapter explores the multiple aims of contemporary anti-corruption law, tracing the significant impact of international treaties and conventions upon definitions, enforcement powers and legal remedies. It also explores the impact of legal indeterminacy through a case study on the legal status of facilitation payments in Australia, comparing relevant law, policy and practice in the United States and United Kingdom. Through an examination of the history, policies and practices relating to 'facilitation payments', the chapter evaluates the legitimacy of practices designed to 'grease' the wheels of international trade. It explains the impact of legal indeterminacy more generally on law enforcement policies and practices in relation to bribery. Legal scholars commonly claim that legal indeterminacy significantly hampers law enforcement action.

This article examines foreign bribery in China since the early 2000s and the State's legal and penal changes in response to this increasingly common form of transnational corruption. It argues that over the last fifteen years, Chinese authorities have shifted national anti-bribery policies from one of de facto corporate impunity to de jure zero tolerance. Multinational corporations engaging in foreign bribery in China today are no longer vulnerable only to the risk of investigation, prosecution, and punishment by foreign jurisdictions. Rather, foreign corporations are now faced with much tougher domestic law enforcement, which forms part of the State's wider crackdown on corruption in China. However, as our case studies reveal, while the impact of zero tolerance strategies in curbing corporate offending is debatable, applying strategies of 'harsh justice' may ultimately be counterproductive to social stability and crime control. Although draconian, zero-tolerance strategies may appeal to politics of punitive populism, the authors contend that alternative strategies based on diversionary justice, such as deferred prosecution agreements and/or negotiated settlements, can more effectively realize the aims of prevention, restitution, rehabilitation, and reform. Drawing valuable lessons from the US and UK experiences, China has the potential to devise its own reconciliation scheme, tailored to local concerns and culture, and balancing legal accountability, cost-efficiency and social stability, especially in relation to the limiting potential adverse economic harms flowing from prosecuting multinational corporations for foreign bribery in China. Balancing the 'payoffs' and 'pitfalls' of negotiated justice, this article concludes that trialing diversionary measures is likely to appeal to affected stakeholders, including regulatory agencies, law enforcement and judicial authorities, corporate and business sectors, and the wider community, which are seeking to end to cultures of impunity for corporate corruption.

This chapter examines the issues of legal principle and policy arising from agreements to terminate or defer prosecution, critically reviewing the 'payoffs' and 'pitfalls' of using such agreements to deal with serious corporate crime. In the United States and United Kingdom, the advent of deferred prosecution agreements, or deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), has been heralded as another valuable tool for regulators, and the adoption of a DPA scheme is currently under consideration in Australia. However, the purposes and principles governing DPA schemes remain nascent and ill-defined. The chapter calls for the adoption of a more principled approach to deferred prosecution, one that prioritises preventive justice over regulatory pragmatism and expediency. It explores the preventive potential of DPA schemes, and how current law and practice may be realigned to prioritise prevention or minimisation of harms by corporations, and, where that proves impossible, to ensure adequate redress and compensation.

This article examines the policing of a major international political event (the G20 Meetings in Brisbane, Australia in 2014) from the perspective of the police and representatives of demonstrator groups who participated in the event. The article locates the policing of the 2014 G20 meetings within the history of the policing of major international political meetings in other countries. It analyses the legal framework within which the policing of the Brisbane G20 meeting was undertaken, comparing and contrasting these with legal frameworks developed for similar meetings and associated demonstrations in other jurisdictions. In the case of the Australian G20 Act, the legislation prioritized security over human rights, including the freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly. The strategies and planning processes applied by police in the lead up to the G20 are discussed, including the efforts made to ensure policing responses were respectful of the democratic rights of protesters. Drawing on interview and other data, the article reveals a diversity of perspectives on the human rights' policing and dialogue models, and provides an assessment of Operation Southern Cross' based on the post-event review of the G20 legislation undertaken by the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission. The authors conclude that the policing of G20, based on extensive dialogue and minimization of coercive public order strategies, fostered a peaceful G20 event. The article concludes with observations about the perceived success of G20 policing in Australia, and indicates some lessons learned for best practice policing for future global events.

1 TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland. 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’: Law Commissions Act 1965 (UK) c 22, s 3. 3 The Law Commission, A Criminal Code for England and Wales, Consultation Paper No 177 (1989) Vols 1 and 2. Is Criminal Law Reform a Lost Cause?

The Federal Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) defines assistance animals to include dogs or other animals that are trained to assist a person with a disability to alleviate the effect of the disability and to meet standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for an animal in a public place. The Federal Court of Australia Full Court has read this definition widely to include a selftrained dog that has not been accredited or trained by a recognised specialist disability animal training association. Considering an estimated four million Australians could claim to have a disability under the wide definition of disability in the DDA, and the extremely low bar to establish that an animal provides assistance to a person with a disability, the impact of these laws are significant and are generating substantial concerns to government, industry and the disability community.

In the months leading up to November’s G20 summit in 2014, Brisbane’s residents would have been forgiven for anticipating the outbreak of a local civil war. Media outlets were leading with headlines stating, among other sensational claims, that ‘G20 anarchists vow chaos and mayhem for Brisbane’s streets’, ‘Black Bloc tactics aim for Brisbane G20 shock and awe’ and ‘Destructive protest plan for G20’. Meanwhile, some of the most severe restrictions on civil liberties seen in Australia in recent years were legislated by the Queensland parliament. The G20 Safety and Security Act 2013 (Qld) (the G20 Act) was passed with little demur by a chamber that was only divided over the question of whether the laws were severe enough, with Queensland opposition police spokesman Bill Byrne MP declaring himself ‘surprised’ at the leniency of some of the sentencing provisions and the ‘minimalist’ approach to restricted areas. Of course, in the event the much-anticipated violence did not occur, and the media’s pre-summit hyperbole was exposed as just that. Rather more prosaically — and accurately — the post-event headlines dutifully reported ‘Passionate, but mostly peaceful protests’ and ‘G20 protest day wraps up peacefully’. Given that previous G20 summits in London and Toronto saw outbreaks of considerable disorder, we might succumb to the temptation of declaring the peaceful protests in Brisbane to be a vindication of the heavy powers granted by the Queensland parliament. But we believe that to do so would be egregious. Here we reflect on the historical and political motivations underpinning the G20 Act, and draw attention to the rather more measured policing strategy employed by the Queensland Police Service (QPS). We argue that the safety and security of G20 participants and protesters owed little to the restrictive powers granted by the G20 Act, but resulted from a policing strategy that successfully married traditional and modern precepts of policing large events.

There is always a trade-off between the rights of an individual and the safety of the community. We will never sacrifice our freedoms in order to defend them but we will not let our enemies exploit our decency either. We need to give our agencies these powers to protect our community. - T Abbott, Prime Minister of Australia, National Security Statement, Canberra, 23 February 2015.Ultimately, it will not be the CT (counter-terrorism) Laws that deter and prevent terrorism, if that outcome is realistic at all, but much broader and deeper elements and dynamics of Australian and international society that include as just one formed part the counter - terrorism laws. - B Walker, Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Annual Report 2011 (2012), p. 13.

Ultimately, it will not be the CT Laws that deter and prevent terrorism, if that outcome is realistic at all, but much broader and deeper elements and dynamics of Australian and international society that include as just one formal part the counter-terrorism laws.2