Balancing between freedoms, rights and safety for all people is the dilemma encountered in any good government.

Sometimes though, there are instances that shock people and sometimes cause a government to react quickly in the belief that they know what is best to preserve freedoms, rights and safety. Continuing from our earlier Criminal Law (Part 1) article, the Queensland State Government introduced the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (“the Act“), intended to protect the public safety, without proper debate.

History has shown that when any time a government, no matter how well motivated, chooses to exercise supreme authority without proper debate or judicial court processes it has led to a slippery slope, where some groups have ended up persecuted.

A former Justice of the Supreme Court Richard Chesterman stated in The Courier-Mail a stunning example concerning loss of rights experienced by the new Act.  “The new Act allows the Attorney-General to imprison an offender without scrutiny and, for the first 12 months, without evidence.  If he thinks the case is “urgent” he need not give the offender an opportunity to argue against his imprisonment.  It is claimed that this law will apply only to the “worst of the worst” but the Act has no such limitation and no criteria to judge which of the many offenders presently supervised under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“DPSO Act“) maybe imprisoned on the Attorney-General’s declaration.  He does not have to give reasons to justify his action, or to explain why he thought an offender should be removed from the jurisdiction of the court and the law.”

This article discusses the importance of having our judicial system involved in the punishment of alleged offenders, or if they are offenders in determining a way towards rehabilitation.

“The whole legislation makes a mockery of the judicial system by dictating to judges what they must do in regards to sentencing.  The judicial system is supposed to be based on the separation of powers – this undermines that whole doctrine.  Judges will almost be superfluous.  The Attorney-General will instead hold all the power as judge, jury and executioner.”

Press articles regarding the courts substantiate this point:

1. Renee Viellaris (The Courier-Mail) writes that the Queensland Court of Appeal president Margaret McMurdo urged the Attorney-General “not to interfere with judicial discretion”, having written to the him saying “the interests of justice and the community are best served by arming judicial officers with the widest possible range of options when sentencing offenders.  That is the best way judicial officers can ensure the punishment fits the crime.”
2. Steven Wardill (The Courier-Mail) wrote that Justice Fryberg of the Supreme Court postponed a case as “Mr Newman (Queensland Premier) was threatening justice by influencing the courts to “bend to the will of the Government”.  It continued by saying “Justice Fryberg said judges could be left with no option but to stay bail appeals, meaning bikies already on bail would stay on the streets,” Wardill quotes Justice Fryberg as having stated that “the Government’s principal spokesman has publicly told the court what the outcome should be… and that’s what is troubling me.”

“The legislation itself imposes harsh penalties – 15 to 25 years (depending on the allegations) imprisonment with no parole eligibility or parole release date.  An offender (if convicted) is to serve the whole of their sentence in actual custody.  Again this undermines another fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system and the principals of sentencing, rehabilitation.

We should never forget we are a compassionate society, a society of human beings, and a democratic society where we look to rehabilitate those who have committed offences.  We cannot just have an Attorney-General operating as a judge, jury and executioner, without a system which looks at extenuating circumstances.

Looking at this on a more simplistic level if there is no opportunity for rehabilitation and redemption for the offender, and they are treated harshly irrespective of crime it is of little wonder there are now physical threats (as published in the paper) going around.

Imprisoning a person for an extended period of time will undoubtedly punish them, but will also make it more difficult to reintegrate into the community upon their release.  This reintegration period will also be done without the supervision of parole, which increases the likelihood that further offences will be committed.  There is also the issue of institutionalisation which again makes it so much harder for a person to rehabilitate and be a contributing member of society.

Not all individuals who are members of bikie groups are murderers, extortionists and/or drug dealers.  In fact, often people join groups to belong, to have comradery, to have a family and/or the ability to fit in and not be judged.  Therefore, it is important to punish proportionately any crimes, not impose and/or serve humiliating penalties (i.e. pink jumpsuits) for lesser offences.  We need to appreciate the psychological reasons why anyone belongs to any group.

I urge all our politicians to take into account the psychological and other reasons for membership in any group and to not apply punishment for lengthy periods purely because of association.  Targeting by offering severe penalties irrespective of offence type will potentially result in dreadful consequences for all parties involved.”

Press articles to substantiate some of the points raised, include:

1. Renee Viellaris (The Courier-Mail) writes that police are on high alert after talk that some bikies “would kill to escape the law” following the new laws which could leave members facing 25 years in jail.
2. Jeremy Pierce (The Sunday Mail) writes gang bosses have said the zero-tolerance police response will force bikies underground and “you won’t even know who we are”.
3. Greg Stolz (The Courier-Mail) writes how it was stated by the Police Minister that members and associates of criminal gangs will be dressed in fluorescent pink jumpsuits.

How We Can Help

Any individual or group who worries that their freedoms, rights and safety might be at jeopardy, should obtain immediate legal advice from our experienced criminal lawyers about how they move forward day-to-day without unnecessarily risking an incarceration penalty.

Our team have the experience and expertise to obtain the best possible outcome.

As one of our clients said “Invest in the best. Q&S“.

Contact Us

Get the best representation. Contact Quinn & Scattini Lawyers on 1800 999 529, email mail@rmold.newwebsite.live, or submit an enquiry below.

We are available to meet with you at any of our local offices (Brisbane, Gold Coast, Beenleigh, Cleveland and Jimboomba) or by telephone or video-conference.

This article is for your information and interest only. It is not intended to be comprehensive, and it does not constitute and must not be relied on as legal advice. You must seek specific advice tailored to your circumstances.

Articles Mentioned

Title: Change Will Date: 22 October 2013
Outlet: The Courier-Mail
Author: Former Justice Richard Chesterman
Pages: 22 – 23

Title: Judge hits out at changes to sentencing laws
Date: 2 November 2013
Outlet: The Courier-Mail
Author: Renee Viellaris
Page: 7

Title: Brawl Spills: The Premier versus the Justice
Date: 31 October 2013
Outlet: The Courier-Mail
Author: Steven Wardill
Page: 4

Title: Tip-off has police on guard against deadly resistance
Date: 1 November 2013
Outlet: The Courier-Mail
Author: Renee Viellaris
Page: 6

Title: ‘Response will just force us underground’
Date: 20 October 2013
Outlet: The Sunday Mail
Author: Jeremy Pierce
Page: 9

Title: Ultimate humiliation for tough guy prisoners: Crims in the Pink
Date: 21 October 2013
Outlet: The Courier-Mail
Author: Greg Stolz Page: 1