or whether the publisher or the author are at risk of falling foul of federal proceeds of crime laws. Christer said that Random House's financial arrangements with its authors were confidential. ABC News quoted George Williams, a legal expert from the University of New South Wales, who said "You can't proceed unless you actually know that Hicks is profiting. Unless that can be shown, then there's no basis to make an order against him." ABC News noted that his conviction might be overturned, in which case he would be free to receive royalties. By July 2011, Australia's Director of Public Prosecutions announced that legal proceedings against Hicks had commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and that a family trust into which the book sales were being paid was frozen. Legal experts believe the prosecutions case will fail. In 2004, federal proceeds of crime laws were amended to include offences covered by the US military commission, in order to prevent Hicks from profiting. As the military commission that convicted Hicks was found to be invalid, in 2011 the amendment was repealed and the existing federal proceeds of crime legislation no longer applies, although the DPP believes the federal law is still broad enough to cover Hicks. South Australia still has laws preventing Hicks from profiting, but these may not apply in regard to a trial that did not satisfy the principles of natural justice and an attempt to apply them to Hicks could, according to Williams, end up in the High Court as a major constitutional challenge. Following the publication of his autobiography, Hicks received a standing ovation from an audience of 900 people at his first public appearance at the Sydney Writers' Festival in May 2011. On 23 July 2012, the Director of Public Prosecutions announced that the case against Hicks had been dropped, as documentary evidence such as Hicks' guilty plea and other admissions may not be admissible in court due to the circumstances in which they were obtained. Hicks' legal team argued that they were made under "instances of severe beatings, sleep deprivation and other conditions of detention that contravene international human rights norms." Another reason to drop was that Hicks had made an "Alford plea", which Australia does not recognise. The Commonwealth has been ordered to pay Hicks' court costs. Outside court, Hicks claimed that the decision