{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012433392539964476, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017761989342806395, 'mean_word_length': 5.403409090909091, '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}}
Reputation, Power and Fairness: A Review of the Impact of Judicial Review upon Investigative Tribunals

We live in times of escalating activity of investigative tribunals uncovering corruption, crime, discrimination and violations of public service discipline. Investigation by agencies of the executive branch of government has become an industry, a form of regulation and policy-making which ranges well beyond the occasional royal commission.1 This has been matched by an escalating concern of civil libertarians and courts regarding the damage which investigative tribunals may do to those who are investigated or named in their proceedings. There is a question whether the expressed concern of the courts, the protection of reputation, is warranted in the light of the accountability of such tribunals by means of judicial review.2 The degree to which investigative tribunals cause damage to individuals in a manner which infringes their fundamental rights is constantly a matter of controversy. The degree of success achieved by the tribunals in pursuing their statutory objectives is also often a matter of controversy.