The ability of dissents to pave the way for change in the law is regularly cited as one of their virtues. But this examination of a period of the court’s recent history shows that the direct reversal of a precedent in favour of the minority opinion which accompanied it is actually very rare.

David Hicks admitted nothing more than he had described in letters home, writes Andrew Lynch.

Legislating now and trying to fix the problems later is a dangerous practice, argues Andrew Lynch.

Andrew Lynch tests the assumption that constitutional cases generally produce a heightened level of disagreement among members of the High Court. He finds that although the court decides a higher percentage of constitutional cases over dissenting opinions than it does overall, there is not enough evidence to confirm that the Justices simply disagree per se...

With the upcoming retirement of Justice Michael McHugh from the High Court, Andrew Lynch discusses his contribution, looks at how his absence will be felt and comments on the future of the bench. This article was written before the federal government appointed Justice Susan Crennan to the High Court