JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY VOLUME 33, NUMBER 3, SEPTEMBER 2006 ISSN: 0263-323X, pp. 451±74 The Deep Colonizing Practices of the Australian Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Elena Marchetti* This paper demonstrates how legal processes utilized by institutions established to reverse the effects of colonization, can continue the coloni- zing agenda. The processes reflect `deep' rather than `de-'colonizing practices. The Australian Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody RCIADIC), which tabled its National Report over a decade ago and which was heralded as the inquiry which would transform race politics for Indigenous Australians, is used as an example of a `decolonizing' institution that inadvertently adopted deep colonizing practices. Using data from interviews with 48 Indigenous and non- Indigenous people who were associated with the RCIADIC, this paper expands Deborah Bird Rose's theoretical construct of `deep colonizing practices' and illustrates how difficult it is to shift hegemonic legal processes and beliefs, despite intentions to empower and embrace Indigenous views. INTRODUCTION The underlying premise of critical legal scholarship 1 is the notion that law and legal systems are not `benign, neutral and autonomous . . .'. 2 Instead, 451 ß 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation ß 2006 Cardiff University Law School. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA * Law School, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, GU Nathan, 4111, Australia e.marchetti@griffith.edu.au I would like to sincerely thank all those who participated in this research by generously giving their time and sharing memories of their experiences of working for the RCIADIC. I would also like to express my deepest regret and sympathy for the families and friends of the Australian Indigenous people who died, and are still dying, in custody. The feedback and comments provided by the anonymous reviewers of the JLS, Professor Phil Scraton, Professor Kathleen Daly, and Dr Nick James were extremely helpful and much appreciated. 1 The use of the term critical legal scholarship in this paper is used in a general sense and is not intended to refer to the Critical Legal Scholarship CLS) movement. 2 G.J. Simpson and H. Charlesworth, `Objecting to Objectivity: The Radical Challenge to Legal Liberalism' in Thinking About Law: Perspectives on the History, Philosophy and Sociology of Law, eds. R. Hunter, R. Ingleby, and R. Johnstone 1995) 86.