ABSTRACT Preventive justice as a field of scholarship emerged in response to the proliferation of preventive measures in the later part of the twentieth Century, and the threat preventive measures pose to individual liberties. Collectively, this scholarship seeks to articulate principled limits on state action to prevent harm. However, preventive justice remains an emergent field of scholarship, with many outstanding questions about its scope, utility and the expediency of its normative project. In the decision in Vella v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2019) 93 ALJR 1236, the High Court, for the first time, engages with preventive justice scholarship. This article examines how the distinctions between the majority and minority treatment of the Kable principle in Vella illuminate many of the debates and challenges raised in the literature on preventive justice, the implications of this division across the Court and what it means more broadly for preventive justice in Australia.

中文翻译：

---

对预防性司法的反对派观点：高等法院和严重犯罪预防令

摘要 预防司法作为一个学术领域应运而生，以应对20世纪后期预防措施的激增以及预防措施对个人自由构成的威胁。总的来说，这项奖学金旨在阐明对国家行动以防止伤害的原则性限制。然而，预防性司法仍然是一个新兴的学术领域，在其范围、效用和规范项目的权宜之计方面存在许多悬而未决的问题。在 Vella v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2019) 93 ALJR 1236 的判决中，高等法院首次参与预防性司法奖学金。