In the first editorial written on the launch of Criminal Law and Philosophy, the editors expressed the wish that the journal would provide

a home for good philosophical writing about criminal law, a place where people will look to find such writing, and a forum for productive inter-disciplinary conversation about issues in criminal law—all of which should provide further stimulus to philosophical lawyers and legal philosophers.Footnote 1

Thanks to the initial editorial team, and then to Antony Duff and Doug Husak respectively, the journal has more than realised its initial aims. Taking over the editorial reins from Doug Husak is daunting. In addition to being a brilliant philosopher of criminal law, Doug has worked tirelessly to develop the journal, encourage new work and scholars, and to earn CLPH a well-deserved reputation for speed and efficiency (in a domain of academia not always known for those virtues). He has also been generous with his time in helping us get to grips with our new roles. It is thus with enormous pleasure that we thank Doug for everything he has done.

This is also an appropriate moment to thank the many referees over the years without whom no journal can succeed; our Associate Editors; Massimo Renzo, who oversees book reviews and symposia; and our Editorial Board. Sadly, in this issue we mark the premature loss of one member of the Board, the great and loved John Gardner.

Given the success of the journal, we do not plan to make any substantive changes in the approach that has seen CLPH come this far. Rather, we want to build on that success in part by opening up the journal to more people and ideas. With respect to people, we are eager to see more contributions from outside the Anglo-American world and more from scholars from minority communities. If you fit into either, or both, of these groups, please do submit your work or get in touch about book reviewing (or anything else).

With respect to ideas, CLPH promised to publish in substantive criminal law, punishment and sentencing, and criminal justice, and it has done all those things. It has perhaps seen less of work in international criminal law and in informal responses to crime, but we remain committed to those areas.Footnote 2 More generally, there is still more to be done to break down what Nicola Lacey has called ‘a curiously unproductive division of labour between criminologists, criminal lawyers, and students of the criminal process and punishment’.Footnote 3 In our time at the helm of CLPH, our hope then is to remain true to the founding principles of the journal while endeavouring to expand its reach and scope.