AustLit
Latest Issues
AbstractHistoryArchive Description
'Robert Marsden Hope (1919–99), a NSW Supreme Court judge, shaped the structures, operations and doctrines of Australia’s intelligence agencies more than any other individual.
'Commissioned by three Prime Ministers to conduct major inquiries, including two royal commissions, Justice Hope prescribed the structures, legislation, operational doctrines, and national and international arrangements that would ensure Australia had agencies that were effective in countering threats to its security, while also being fully accountable to the government, the law and the parliament.
'Not just a biography on Hope, Law, Politics and Intelligence also makes an important contribution to the history of Australia’s environmental policies, adds significantly to the debate on judges acting as Royal Commissioners, and contains new insights into the appointment of High Court and Supreme Court judges, as well as the dismissal of the Whitlam Government.
'This landmark biography is a groundbreaking account of the life and times of a man who shaped the way our intelligence agencies have operated for four decades.'
Source: Publisher's blurb.
Publication Details of Only Known VersionEarliest 2 Known Versions of
Other Formats
- Large print.
- Dyslexic edition.
- Braille.
Works about this Work
-
Hope for a Life of Public Service
2020
single work
review
— Appears in: The Weekend Australian , 12 September 2020; (p. 16)
— Review of Law, Politics and Intelligence : A Life of Robert Hope 2020 single work biography'Judicial biography is a relatively sparse field. This is hardly surprising given that most cases heard by judges, while of great importance to the parties, do not have any broader public significance.' (Introduction)
-
Hope for a Life of Public Service
2020
single work
review
— Appears in: The Weekend Australian , 12 September 2020; (p. 16)
— Review of Law, Politics and Intelligence : A Life of Robert Hope 2020 single work biography'Judicial biography is a relatively sparse field. This is hardly surprising given that most cases heard by judges, while of great importance to the parties, do not have any broader public significance.' (Introduction)