A recent submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs said this about the Australian law of criminal procedure:

The recent law of criminal investigation is governed by a confusing “amalgam of common law, statutory law, court-directed practices and internal police regulations” .... A policeman’s non-observance of [a citizen’s rights] may lead to internal disciplinary procedures, but it does not constitute an offence nor give the suspect a cause of action [or, necessarily lead to exclusion of the evidence].

Several months of studying the law of criminal investigation in Australia have led me to agree with this conclusion. It is the purpose of this article to discuss what that law is, but to do so in the only context that has any meaning in the real world of law enforcement. That is, in the context of remedies, specifically exclusionary remedies, for police misconduct.

The passing of the 1988-1989 third financial quarter will probably be viewed by the BHP Group with mixed emotions. On the one hand BHP was recently reported to be “on course for [a] record $1 bn profit” for this current financial year, having in the first nine months lifted its profits to $768 million, a 5.8 per cent increase on the $725.8 million for the equivalent period in the 1987–1988 financial year. On the other hand however it was in this third quarter that the High Court, at the expense of BHP, was given its first opportunity to consider s 46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Pty Ltd and Australian Wire Industries Pty Ltd. In a decision shedding some much needed light on the section, the Court unanimously held that BHP misused its substantial degree of power in the steel products market by refusing to supply Y-bar to Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd (QWI), albeit in continued adherence to its policy of committing that product to manufacturing processes within the BHP group.

Guardianship laws either for intellectually disadvantaged people alone, or for anyone with diminished functional capacity (such as victims of brain trauma), are now popular in Australia (other than in Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory) and New Zealand. These laws are based on North American experience, particularly that of the Dependent Adults Act 1976 (Alberta). The common thread is that it permits a guardian to be appointed to manage the property or the personal affairs of the disadvantaged person, or to make one or more of the multitude of decisions lying within these two broad areas of human living.

Contemporary legislation is notable for three things. First, partial orders are permitted (in place of only plenary orders). Indeed they are positively encouraged where any intervention at all is called for (the normalisation principle). Secondly, personal guardianships have been revived (having existed all along under cumbersome equity jurisdictions of – or associated with – superior courts).