{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013953488372093023, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0069767441860465115, 'mean_word_length': 5.15, '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}}
Old Dogs, New Tricks

Since 11 September 2001, national security and terrorism have been at the forefront of Australian domestic politics. Laws regulating crime, policing, and the collection of intelligence have been repeatedly amended to address the threat of terrorism. These changes have severely limited the legal avenues available to terror suspects. This article will argue that the role of public interest lawyers must change to respond to these developments. It contends that public interest lawyers must now do more than use the law to pursue their client’s interests. Public interest lawyers must now seek alternative means of securing a positive outcome for their client. The case of Mohamed Haneef will be used to illustrate these developments and emphasise the growing importance of the media and unconventional tactics to public interest lawyers.