Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Regulating Undercover Policing: Subjects, Rights and Governmentality

  • Published:
Critical Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of Foucault’s many unfinished projects was an analysis of the links between law, power and subjectivity. This article aims to make a contribution to Foucauldian jurisprudence by asking the question: in what ways does law construct identity? Using the regulation of undercover police investigation as an example, this article considers the intersection between three core rationalities within legal systems—rights, derogation and authorization—as critical moments in the governance of human beings, mobilized through legal architectures. Here, we find identities constructed, tested and applied in a multilateral relationship as intended and unintended consequences of the technologies of law. In this space, we not only see the mechanisms of law operating for the purpose of mobilizing power relations, but we also observe the myriad ways in which the architecture of law promoting rights operates as a system of governance that reveals rights claims as hollow, impeachable and ephemeral. The article concludes by considering rights, derogation and authorization as key components of Foucauldian jurisprudence—a distinct governmentality, where law articulates what rights are available and their associated mechanics, the mechanisms of adjudication and exception, and the formal modes of counter-conduct.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There is an extensive body of literature on undercover policing and investigation. Arguably the most important is the work of Marx (Fijnaut and Marx 1995; Marx 1988).

  2. As a matter of law, privacy is a complex issue. Australian law does not recognise a general right to privacy, although the High Court has indicated it would consider the issue in the right case (e.g., Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199). There is a statutory right to privacy in some jurisdictions (Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), §12; Charter of Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), §13; Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), §25)). In Canada, there is no specific reference to a general right to privacy in the Charter of Rights and Responsibilities Act. In Hunter v Southam ([1984] 2 S.C.R. 145), however, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Responsibilities Act (dealing with unreasonable search and seizure) was broad enough to protect a citizen from unreasonable state intrusion into privacy. In the UK, there is similarly no specific reference to a general right to privacy in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c.42), but that act is intended to import the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 8 of the ECHR guarantees the right to privacy. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also contains a guarantee in Article 17.

  3. See, e.g., A v Hayden (1984) 156 CLR 532 (where the Australian Secret Intelligence Service staged a live-fire raid on a hotel in Sydney); Ridgeway v Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19 (where the Australian Federal Police facilitated the importation of heroin from Malaysia); Gedeon v Commissioner of the NSW Crime Commission [2008] HCA 43 (where undercover investigators “lost” at least 3 kg of cocaine in the course of an undercover operation).

  4. See, e.g., Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Part IAB; Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997 (NSW); Crimes (Controlled Operations) Act 2008 (ACT). These operations are routinely supported by telecommunications intercepts (Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)) and listening devices (e.g., Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth)).

  5. The Commonwealth has legislative power with respect to telecommunication (see Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, §51(v); see also Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)). Note, there is a degree of power-sharing in this space. States also have reciprocal provisions in local law, such as the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) (New South Wales) Act 1987 (NSW); the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth); and the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW).

  6. Note, the derogation provisions within the Charter have specific constitutional implications in Canada by virtual of the inclusion of the Charter in the Constitution of Canada.

  7. There are some arguments that the way in which laws are structured, including the exceptions, are important drivers of police misconduct in investigations, with decisions made to run the gauntlet of judicial tolerance in the context of serious forms of offending (see Austin 2015a, b).

  8. There is an important link here with Hart’s (2012) analysis of law as the union of primary and secondary rules but that analysis is beyond the scope of this article.

  9. In the ICCPR, those rights are: the right to life (Art. 6), the right not to be tortured (Art. 7), the right not to be enslaved (Art. 8), the right not to be imprisoned for a debt (Art. 11), the right not to be imprisoned for an offense not known in law (Art. 15), the right to legal personality (Art. 16), and freedom of conscience, thought and religion (Art. 18).

  10. The most high-profile extra-judicial killing in recent years was the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 by the US. It was celebrated by many around the world, although many lawyers expressed serious concerns. Human Rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, for example, argued bin Laden should have been brought before a court and tried according to law.

References

  • Abelson, D. (2003). Sentencing entrapment: An overview and analysis. Marquette Law Review,86(4), 773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleby, S. C., Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2011). Police-induced confessions: An empirical analysis of their content and impact. Psychology, Crime & Law,19(2), 111–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (1978). Entrapment. Criminal Law Review, 137–140.

  • Ashworth, A. (1998). Should the police be allowed to use deceptive practices? Law Quarterly Review,114(Jan), 108–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (1999). What is wrong with entrapment? Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, December, 293–317.

  • Ashworth, A. (2000). Is the criminal law a lost cause? Law Quarterly Review,166(April), 225–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2002). Re-drawing the Boundaries of Entrapment. Criminal Law Review, March, 161–179.

  • Ashworth, A. (2006). Four threats to the presumption of innocence. South African Law Journal,123(1), 63–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A., & Redmayne, M. (2010). The criminal process (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, L. (2015a). Lawful illegality: What Snowden has taught us about the legal infrastructure of the surveillance state. In M. Geist (Ed.), Law, privacy and surveillance in Canada in the post-Snowden era (pp. 103–125). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, L. (2015b). Surveillance and the rule of law. Surveillance & Society,13(2), 295–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aviram, H. (2011). Packer in context: Formalism and fairness in the due process model. Law and Social Inquiry,36(1) [Winter], 237–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, J. (2006). Early detection: The bow street runners in late eighteenth-century London. In C. Emsley & H. Shpayer-Makov (Eds.), Police detectives in history, 1750–1950 (pp. 15–32). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. (2002). Theatrical investigation: White-collar crime, undercover operations, and privacy. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal,11(1), 151–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, B., & Sheptycki, J. (2012). Global policing. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J., Fisse, B., & Geis, G. (1987). Covert facilitation and crime: Restoring balance to the entrapment debate. Journal of Social Issues,43(3), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodeur, J.-P. (1983). High policing and low policing: Remarks about the policing of political activities. Social Problems,30(5), 507–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronitt, S. (1999). Entrapment, human rights and criminal justice: A licence to deviate? Hong Kong Law Journal,29(2), 216–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronitt, S. (2002). Sang is dead, loosely speaking. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, July, 374–387.

  • Bronitt, S. (2003). Taking privacy rights seriously: Engaging with undercover law reform. Criminal Law Journal,27, 113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronitt, S. (2004). The law in undercover policing: A comparative study of entrapment and covert interviewing in Australia, Canada and Europe. Common Law World Review,33(1), 35–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronitt, S., & Roche, D. (2000). Between rhetoric and reality: Sociolegal and republican perspectives on entrapment. International Journal of Evidence and Proof,4(2), 77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronitt, S., & Roche, D. (2001). Entrapment, the art of police deception. Australian Quarterly,73(1), 20–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke, D. (2009). Entrapment: Beyond the judicial pale. Irish Law Times,27(20), 289–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, G., Gordon, C., & Miller, P. (Eds.). (1991). The foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T. (2006). Rights: A critical introduction. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, G. (Ed.). (1983). ABSCAM ethics: Moral issues and deception in law enforcement. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, D. (2009). To catch the lion, tether the goat: Entrapment, conspiracy, and sentencing manipulation. Akron Law Journal,42(1), 135–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernok, A. (2011). Entrapment under controlled operations legislation: A Victorian perspective. Criminal Law Journal,35(6), 361–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choo, A. L.-T. (1999). Legal aspects of undercover police operations in England and Wales. International Journal of Police Science and Management,2(2), 144–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colvin, E. (2002). Controlled operations, controlled activities and entrapment. Bond Law Review,14(2), 227–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colvin, E. (2006). Fairness and equality in the criminal process. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal,6(1), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth of Australia, New South Wales Government, Queensland Government, & Victorian Government. (1983). Royal commission of inquiry into drug trafficking. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cope, N. (2004). ‘Intelligence led policing or policing led intellegence?’ Integrating volume crime analysis into policing. The British Journal of Criminology,44(2), 188–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutting, P. D. (1983). The technique of controlled delivery as a weapon in dealing with illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. UNODC Bulletin on Narcotics,34(4), 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, M. (1995). Governing the unemployed self in an active society. Economy and Society,24(4), 559–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, G. (1991). What is a dispositif? In T. J. Armstrong (Ed.), Michel foucault: Philosopher (pp. 159–168). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depp, D. (2010). Entrapment and controlled operations. New York: LexisNexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douzinas, C. (2000). The end of human rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking rights seriously. London: Duckworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, G. (1985). The serpent beguiled me and I did eat: Entrapment and the creation of crime. Law and Philosophy,4(1), 17–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, G. (1987). Ethics and entrapment. Journal of Social Issues,43(3), 57–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericson, R. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferejohn, J., & Pasquino, P. (2004). The law of the exception: A typology of emergency powers. International Journal of Constitutional Law,2(2), 210–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/2.2.210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fijnaut, C., & Marx, G. T. (1995). Undercover: Police surveillance in comparative perspective. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980). The confession of the flesh. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 (pp. 194–228). New York: Pantheon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J., Henning, T., Hunter, J., & Warner, K. (2011). Criminal process and human rights. Sydney: Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershman, B. L. (1982). Abscam, the judiciary, and the ethics of entrapment. The Yale Law Journal,91(8), 1565–1591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golder, B. (2015). Foucault and the politics of rights. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalk, P. (2009). Information sources in police intelligence. The Police Journal,82(2), 149–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grono, N. (2011). Rule of law and the justice system in Afghanistan. International Crisis Group, April 28. https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/afghanistan/rule-law-and-justice-system-afghanistan.

  • Hafner-Burton, E., Helfer, L., & Fariss, C. (2011). Emergency and escape: Explaining derogations from human rights treaties. International Organization,65(Fall), 673–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggerty, K., & Ericson, R. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. The British Journal of Sociology,51(4), 605–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harfield, C., & Harfield, K. (2008a). Covert investigation (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harfield, C., & Harfield, K. (2008b). Intelligence: Investigation, community and partnership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, H. (2012). The concept of law (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydon, J. D. (1973). The problems of entrapment. Cambridge Law Journal,32(2), 268–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons. (1833). Report from the select committee on the petition of Frederick young and others (Vol. XIII). London: House of Commons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hufnagel, S. (2013). Policing cooperation across borders: Comparative perspectives on law enforcement within the EU and Australia. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hufnagel, S., Harfield, C., & Bronitt, S. (Eds.). (2012). Cross border law enforcement. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, A. (2003). The advance of intelligence-led policing strategies: The emperor’s new clothes. The Police Journal,76, 45–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jochelson, R., Weinrath, M., & Murchison, M. J. (2012). Searching and seizing after 9/11: Developing and applying empirical methodology to measure judicial output in the supreme court’s section 8 jurisprudence. Dalhousie Law Journal,35(1), 179–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joubert, C. (1994). Undercover policing: A comparative study. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice,2(1), 18–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S., Drizin, S., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G., Leo, R., & Redlich, A. (2010). Police-induced confessions, risk factors, and recommendations: Looking ahead. Law and Human Behavior,34(1), 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9217-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinig, J. (1996). The ethics of policing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klockars, C. (1980). The Dirty Harry problem. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,452(1), 33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruisbergen, E. W., Kleemans, E. R., & de Jong, D. (2012). Controlling criminal investigations: The case of undercover operations. Policing,6(4), 398–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leman-Langlois, S., & Shearing, C. (2009). Human rights implications for new developments in policing. Geneva: International Council on Human Rights Policy. http://www.ichrp.org/files/papers/172/policing_and_surveillance_leman-lanlgois_and_shearing.pdf.

  • Lippert, R. (2009). Signs of the surveillant assemblage: Privacy regulation, urban CCTV, and governmentality. Social & Legal Studies,18(4), 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663909345096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, L. (2000). Confessions and admissions to undercover police and police agents. The Australian Law Journal,74(6), 391–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, G. T. (1974). Thoughts on a neglected category of social movement participant: The agent provocateur and the informant. American Journal of Sociology,80(2), 402–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, G. T. (1980). The new police undercover work. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,8(4), 399–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, G. T. (1982). Who really gets stung? Some issues raised by the new police undercover work. Crime & Delinquency,28(2), 165–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, G. T. (1985). I’ll Be Watching You: Reflections on the new surveillance. In C. Norris & D. Wilson (Eds.), Surveillance, Crime and Social Control (pp. 3–11). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, G. T. (1988). Undercover: Police surveillance in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, M. J. D. C. (1979–1981). Commission of inquiry concerning certain activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pco-bcp/commissions-ef/mcdonald1979-81-eng/mcdonald1979-81-eng.htm.

  • Murphy, B. (2014). Retrospective on ridgeway: Governing principles of controlled operations law. Criminal Law Journal,38(1), 38–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, B. (2015). Zone of impeachment: A post-Foucauldian analysis of controlled operations law and policy. PhD Thesis, Newcastle Law School, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.

  • Murphy, B. (2016). Deceptive apparatus: Foucauldian perspectives on law, authorized crime and the rationalities of undercover investigation. Griffith Law Review,25(2), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2016.1194956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, B., & Anderson, J. (2014). After the serpent beguiled me: Entrapment and sentencing in Australian and Canada. Queen’s Law Journal,39(2), 621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, B., & Anderson, J. (2016). Assemblage, counter-law and the legal architecture of Australian Covert Surveillance. In R. K. Lippert, K. Walby, I. Warren, & D. Palmer (Eds.), National security, surveillance and terror: Canada and Australia in comparative perspective (pp. 99–127). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadelmann, E. (1994). Cops across borders: The internationalization of U.S. criminal law enforcemeNT. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Police Integrity. (2007). Ceja task force: Drug related corruption. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Government Printer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod, D., & Roberts, A. (2002). The trouble with Teixeira: Developing a principled approach to entrapment. International Journal of Evidence and Proof,6(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packer, H. (1964). Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review,113(1), 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packer, H. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, A. (2004). Applying Swaffield: Covertly obtained statements and the public policy discretion. Criminal Law Journal,28(4), 217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavone, V., & Esposti, S. D. (2012). Public assessment of new surveillance-oriented security technologies: Beyond the trade-off between privacy and security. Public Understanding of Science,21(5), 556–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philips, C. (1980). The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. Report. The investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in England and Wales: The law and procedure. London: HMSO. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271971/2263.pdf

  • Plowden, P., & Kerigan, K. (2002). Another look at entrapment: Predisposition and the right to a fair trial. Human Rights and UK Practice,3(1), 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Presser, B. (2001). Public policy, police and interest: A re-evaluation of the judicial discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence. Melbourne University Law Review,25(3), 757–785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radzinowicz, L. (1956). A history of English Criminal Law and its administration from 1750. The enforcement of the law (Vol. 2). London: Stevens & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranciere, J. (2004). Who is the subject of the rights of man? South Atlantic Quarterly,103(2/3), 297–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, D., & Clay, C. (2012). An umbrella with holes: Respect for non-derogable human rights during declared states of emergency, 1996–2004. Human Rights Review,13, 443–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, G. (1994). Entrapment evidence: Manna from heaven, or fruit of the poisoned tree? Criminal Law Review, November, 805–816.

  • Robertson, G. (2011). Bin Laden’s summary execution maketh the man, martyr and myth. Sydney Morning Herald, May 4. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/bin-ladens-summary-execution-maketh-the-man-martyr-and-myth-20110503-1e6md.html.

  • Roiphe, R. (2003). The serpent beguiled me: A history of the entrapment defense. Seton Hall Law Review,33(2), 257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N., & Valverde, M. (1998). Governed by law? Social & Legal Studies,7(4), 541–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. (2002). Tradeoffs in undercover investigations: A comparative perspective. University of Chicago Law Review,69(3), 1501–1541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. (2007). The place of covert surveillance in democratic societies: A comparative study of the United States and Germany. The American Journal of Comparative Law,55(3), 493–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagarin, E., & Macnamara, D. E. J. (1970). The problem of entrapment. Crime & Delinquency,16(4), 363–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolnick, J. H. (1982). Deception by police. Criminal Justice Ethics,1(2), 40–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slobogin, C. (2010). Government dragnets. Law and Contemporary Problems,73(3), 107–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., Stinson, V., & Patry, M. (2009). Using the “Mr. Big” technique to elicit confessions: Successful innovation or dangerous development in the canadian legal system? Psychology, Public Policy and Law,15(3), 168–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., Stinson, V., & Patry, M. (2010). High-risk interrogation: Using the “Mr. Big Technique” to elicit confessions. Law and Human Behavior,34(1), 39–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9203-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D. (1986). Royal Commission of Inquiry into alleged telephone interceptions (Vol. 1). Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stober, M. (1985). Entrapment in Canadian criminal law. Calgary, AB: Carswell Legal Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stober, M. (1992). The limits of police provocation in Canada. Criminal Law Quarterly,34, 290–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valverde, M. (2010). Specters of Foucault in law and society scholarship. Annual Review of Law and Social Science,6(1), 45–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidocq, F. E. (2003). Memoirs of Vidocq: Master of crime (E. G. Rich, Trans.). Oakland, CA: AK Press.

  • Walby, K., & Lippert, R. (Eds.). (2014). Corporate security in the 21st century: Theory and practice in international perspective. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. J. (1997). Report of the royal commission into the NSW police service. Sydney, NSW: New South Wales Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. (2005). Against Human Rights. New Left Review,34(July August), 115–131.

    Google Scholar 

Cases cited

  • A v Hayden (1984) 156 CLR 532

  • AKJ & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2013] EWHC 32 (QB)

  • Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199

  • Gedeon v Commissioner of the NSW Crime Commission [2008] HCA 43

  • Hunter v Southam [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145

  • Jacobson v. United States 503 U.S. 540 (1992)

  • Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

  • People v. Calvano 331 N.Y.S.2d 430 (1972)

  • R v Hart 2014 SCC 52; [2014] 2 S.C.R. 544

  • R v Mack [1988] 2 S.C.R. 418

  • Ridgeway v Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19

  • Rothman v R [1981] 1 SCR 640

  • Sherman v. United States 356 U.S. 369 (1958)

  • Teixeira de Castro v Portugal (1998) 28 EHRR 101

  • Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author extends sincere thanks to the anonymous reviewers of this article and the invitation of the editors to contribute to this special issue.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Thomas More Law School, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia

    Brendon Murphy

Authors
  1. Brendon Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brendon Murphy.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murphy, B. Regulating Undercover Policing: Subjects, Rights and Governmentality. Crit Crim 28, 65–84 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09504-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09504-6

Search

Navigation