'This is a book for all people with a concern for justice. Ken Crispin's dedication to justice has been unflagging; his discussion of its complexities is admirable; his distress at witnessing injustice is plain. When Crispin was a judge of the ACT Supreme Court, he expressed himself with appropriate judicial restraint. It is a pleasure to see that he has shed some of that restraint along with the robes of office. His discussion of the post 9-11 world does not flinch from the truth. His analysis of the West's response to 9-11 exposes how democracy failed us as fear and vengeance trumped principle. In his discussion of Binyam Mohamed's case he recognises Guantanamo Bay for what it is: a concentration camp which too many Australians tolerated, silently, far too long.'

'Ken Crispin draws on his wealth of experience as a barrister and Supreme Court judge in this comprehensive study of the history and philosophy of our legal system ... Crispin’s philosophical discussion of law and justice is also grounded in contemporary issues, such as refugee rights and mandatory sentencing, and he writes persuasively and precisely, as if giving a judicial ruling on the performance of the entire system of justice. Crispin is a liberal thinker, advocating a less punitive focus in favour of policies that save lives. He also looks beyond the courtroom to address issues of public and social policy, discussing the ‘so-called’ war on drugs in terms of the courts, the police, education and health programmes. The Quest for Justice is an informative study of our legal system and the policies that have shaped it and is a cogent analysis of how justice can be better administered.'

'Clearly a man of compassion who has navigated his way though many legal minefields, Crispin offers an eloquent, accessible and utterly compelling snapshot of Australian justice that poses crucial questions for all of us.'

'Reading this book encourages reflection about both our society and those who are paid to make decisions about the lawfulness, or otherwise, of actions civil and criminal. It is convenient to have so many contentious issues pressed together in the one place. Any inquiring mind will be engaged by the facts and opinions, entertained by some wicked and poignant anecdotes, and confronted by the realities that "personal morality" runs a poor race in any contest where "community fear" is also a starter.'