Archive for August, 2009
08.22.09
Posted in Crime and Society, Law in a Changing Society, News at 9:56 am by admin
The termination of pregnancy is unlawful (s224 -s226) in Queensland unless the defence in s282 applies.
s282 states:
A person is not criminally responsible for performing in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation upon any person for the patient’s benefit, or upon an unborn child for the preservation of the mother’s life, if the performance of the operation is reasonable, having regard to the patient’s state at the time and to all circumstances of the case.
However, the controversial drug RU486 is being increasingly used for abortions. The question whether drug-induced or medical terminations should be lawful has been raised as s282 specifically applies to surgical operation. Doctors in two Queensland’s hospitals have stopped performing drug-induced abortions until the law is changed.
Individuals using RU486 have been charged with the offence of illegally procuring an abortion.
The government has indicated that s282 will be amended. The Premier said: “What we are looking at is where a doctor provides medicine that is authorised for any purpose, that they should be entitled to the same protection already provided under the Criminal Code for any authorised surgery, whether it is in relation to termination of pregnancy or indeed any other surgery” .
See the article by Jamie Walker in The Weekend Australian August 22-23
at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25964134-23289,00.html
Permalink
Posted in Crime and Society at 9:31 am by admin
As noted in an earlier blog on this site, New Zealand was about to take the issue of whether smacking a child should be lawful (if it was a tool used by parents in correcting their child’s behaviour) to a referendum. Two years earlier New Zealand had removed the defence that allowed a parent to smack a child provided it was was reasonable in the disciplining of his or child. The aim was to reduce child abuse by sending a strong message that any physical force used against a child was unacceptable. However, child abuse figures have not decreased since the law was changed.
The question put in the referendum was: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”
The national referendum has just been held and result shows that over 85% of those who voted (55% of the population) wanted the law changed to the pre-2007 position thus giving back to parents the right to smack their children.
The referendum was advisory only. It is now up to the government of New Zealand to decide whether or not to amend the law.
Permalink
08.17.09
Posted in International Law at 8:25 am by admin
With the release of the movie Balibo attention is now focused on the events that occurred in Balibo, East Timor in 1975, when five journalists working for Australian News outlets were shot dead. At the time, Indoensia claimed the journalists were shot in crossfire but this version of events has been discredited by an Australian coronial inquest held in 2007. From the evidence, including eyewitness testimony given at the inquest, the coroner concluded the men were deliberately, not accidentially shot, by Indonesian forces.
One question now raised is whether these killings of journalists who are classified as ‘unarmed non-combatants’ amounted to a war crime. As outlined in Legal Studies for Queensland Vol 2 Chapter 38 this is to be determined by applying principles of international law.
The issues are discussed by Caroline Overington in The Australian, August 17. See:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25937457-17044,00.html
Permalink
Posted in Crime and Society, Rights and Responsibilities at 8:04 am by admin
In Letters to the Editor in The Australian (Monday August 17th) there was the following:
“So the law allows the hopelessly ill to die over several days through starvation whilst a quick and dignified exit with drugs is forbidden. How compassionate are we?”
Marshall Perron
Buderim Qld.
Permalink
08.15.09
Posted in Crime and Society, Rights and Responsibilities at 5:07 pm by admin
The Supreme Court of Western Australia has declared that spastic quadriplegic man has the right to refuse food and water (which he was having through an implanted tube). The court said his carers could comply with his request to stop feeding him even though it would mean he could starve to death. The carers would not be criminally responsible for his death if they followed his directions, as he was of sound mind and understood the consequences of this course of action.
The case was not about euthanasia, which remains unlawful under the Western Australian and Queensland Criminal Codes – section 296 as a form of hastening death (see Legal Studies for Queensland Vol 1: page 132 ) but considered whether his carers had a legal obligation to force feed him, against his will and wishes. Although he was not terminally ill the man felt he had lost quality of life
Permalink
Posted in Crime and Society, Uncategorized at 9:27 am by admin
If the prosecutor applies for the no jury order, the court may only order this if the accused person consents to it.
Permalink