{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.005838198498748957, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009174311926605505, 'mean_word_length': 5.451612903225806, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Coercive Questioning after Charge

One of the distinctive features of the Australian legal landscape is the increasing use of commissions that possess coercive powers to supplement normal police methods in the investigation of crime.1 This practice became common in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when a number of Royal Commissions2 into organised crime or corruption were conducted.3 It continued with the establishment at both the Commonwealth and State level of standing commissions charged with the investigation of various types of serious crime or corruption. This article is concerned with an analysis of the ability of Royal Commissions and standing commissions to use their coercive powers to investigate crime when the investigation may interfere with pending criminal proceedings. It argues that the divergent authorities in this area can best be understood as turning on the fact that the separation of powers doctrine imposes limits on the powers of Commonwealth commissions that do not exist in relation to State commissions. The National Crime Authority! and the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions are the two main national standing commissions with responsibility for