Several scholars have identified an apparently new embrace of innovative pre-emptive control mechanisms developed in response to the post 9/11 world. In their opinion, the pre-emptive rationale has been used to justify the introduction of measures transcending preconceived categories of law, procedure, risk and emergency to deal with individuals or groups thought to pose a danger to the state or its citizens. The control order schemes introduced in the United Kingdom and Australia are a frequently cited example. Imposed on individuals against whom insufficient evidence to prosecute exists, control orders are controversial due to their departure from traditional criminal procedural safeguards. Restrictions and obligations, including lengthy curfews, are imposed on the basis of anticipated risk and without a finding of guilt, justified by the exceptional risk posed by terrorism and the need to protect the state and its people from a terrorist attack. Many have argued that the security paradigm is increasingly being adopted and normalised, thus changing the role of criminal law along the way. This transition is also evident in other areas of governance, expanding the boundaries of risk and uncertainty, creating hybrids of previously distinct areas of law, affecting the separation of powers, ultimately altering how emergencies and exceptions are conceived and implemented. Indeed, much of the debate around control orders stems from their hybrid nature, thus not fitting neatly into our ready-made categories of pre-conceptions about executive and judicial issuance, and civil and criminal frameworks.