Archive for Crime and Society
12.02.09
Posted in Crime and Society, Technology, Torts at 2:31 pm by admin
In Legal Studies for Queensland Vol Two Chapter 33: Law of Cyberspace, the issues pertaining to the use of social networking sites were canvassed. In Chapter 32 Cybercrime there was also an overview of criminal offences that occur on the internet. There is a new one to add to the list – criminal defamation via Facebook. This is something all 6 million + Australian Facebook users need to keep in mind. The Adelaide man who was convicted of criminal defamation had put photos of the police-officer on the Facebook site along with offensive, incorrect and clearly defamatory comments.
The following is a blog post from IP Whiteboard – the blog of Mallesons Stephens Jaques submitted by Julia Atcherley on 30 November 2009 .
“Be careful what you write on Facebook! Adelaide teenager Christopher Cross has recently been convicted for criminal defamation after posting material about a local policeman on a Facebook site. Cross said that he “didn’t realise you could get in trouble for things on the internet ”. Pleading guilty in the Kadina Magistrates Court to criminal defamation, Cross became only the second person in South Australia ever convicted of the rarely used charge. He now has a criminal record and was sentenced to a 2 year good behaviour bond.
The message for Cross and any other users of social media is that although anyone can publish material on social media, the laws that apply to traditional media will still apply. Social media is published in real time and the posts are often permanent.“
For information on what amounts to defamation see Legal Studies for Queensland Vol One, Chapter 18.
Permalink
12.01.09
Posted in Crime and Society, International Law, Uncategorized at 8:03 pm by admin
White Ribbon Day this year was on November 25th. It is the day which the United Nations has set aside to condemn violence against women. Homicide – the most heinous of offences – all too frequently occurs in family settings. This includes homicides that involve partners, former partners and family members, including women and children.
In Australia, the Australian Institute of Criminology released research undertaken of domestic related and other homicides to correspond with this date. It is sobering reading.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp104.aspx
For information on White Ribbon day see; http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/
Permalink
11.26.09
Posted in Crime and Society at 3:38 pm by admin
Under s615 QCC:
(1) The court may make a no jury order if it considers it is in the interests of justice to do so.
(2) However, if the prosecutor applies for the no jury order, the court may only make the no jury order if the accused person consents to it.
(3) If the accused person is not represented by a lawyer, the court must be satisfied that the accused person properly understands the nature of the application.
4(a) the trial, because of its complexity or length or both, is likely to be unreasonably burdensome to a jury;
(b) there is a real possibility that acts that may constitute an offence under section 119B would be committed in relation to a member of a jury;
(c) there has been significant pre-trial publicity that may affect jury deliberations.
The Court may refuse a no jury order where:
The trial will involve a factual issue that requires the application of objective community standards including, for example, an issue of reasonableness, negligence, indecency, obscenity or dangerousness.
The Court may refuse a no jury order where:
The trial will involve a factual issue that requires the application of objective community standards including, for example, an issue of reasonableness, negligence, indecency, obscenity or dangerousness.
Permalink
Posted in Crime and Society, The Legal System at 3:33 pm by admin
s59A Jury Act now allows majority verdicts ….if the judge is satisfied jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict the judge can ask for a majority verdict.
(a) if the jury consists of 12 jurors – a verdict on which at least 11 jurors agree; or
(b) if the jury consists of 11 jurors – a verdict on which at least 10 jurors agree.
Prescribed period: a period of at least 8 hours (breaks excluded) after the jury retires or what judge finds is reasonable if complex trial.
Unanimous verdicts are still required for
(a) (i)murder;
(ii) an offence against s 54A(1) QCC … if the offender is liable to life imprisonment
(iii) an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or
(b) a trial before a jury of only 10 jurors when it gives its verdict
Permalink
Posted in Crime and Society, The Legal System at 3:23 pm by admin
Consider the facts in the case of Harvey v Police [2009] SASC 302
Harvey was in a friend’s Fiesta car and his friend drove in a petrol station. Harvey had his seat belt fastened in the passenger seat of this manual car which was stationary at a petrol station. The friend went in the shop to pay for the petrol and left his keys in the ignition. Harvey reached across and attempted to turn keys to “accessories” position in order to operate the radio but accidentally turned key to “ignition” position, activating the starter motor. The engine cranked over but did not start but the car lurched forward, as it was in gear, and rolled towards the service station building. He moved the steering wheel to avoid hitting the building but was unsuccessful.
Harvey was charged with several offences [driving a vehicle while he had present in his blood the prescribed concentration of alcohol; driving a vehicle while he was disqualified from holding a licence; driving an unregistered vehicle; and driving an uninsured vehicle.
Each offence had the driving of a motor vehicle as a key element. The magistrate found that appellant had driven the motor vehicle and guilty of all four offences.
Harvey appealed to the Supreme Court of South Australia. (hereafter he is the appellant)
Justice White considered definitions on the meaning of ‘drive’ and notes that ‘drive includes be in control of’ and reviewed a range of cases where the meaning of ‘drive’ was in issue. On the facts at hand His Honour found that:
- “In the present circumstances, the appellant was exercising some control. It was his action in turning the ignition key one notch further than he intended which caused the Fiesta to move. Once it started moving, he attempted to control the direction of its travel by his movement of the steering wheel. In addition, if the appellant had wished to do so, he could have applied the handbrake. He said that he did not do so because of panic. In some of the cases reviewed above, even less control than that exercised by, or open to, the appellant in this case has been sufficient to amount to the driving of a vehicle.
- On the other hand, the appellant remained seat-belted in the passenger seat at all times. He could not operate the clutch, footbrake or accelerator and could not have changed gear. In addition, it would have been difficult for him to operate the other controls available to a driver of the Fiesta such as the indicator, lights or warning device. The engine of the car had not started and it moved only some five metres. In these circumstances it does not seem apt, using the ordinary meaning of the word “drive”, to describe the appellant as the driver of the Fiesta. It would be more natural to regard him as having interfered with the driving of the vehicle during the friend’s temporary absence from the vehicle…….
I do not consider that it can be concluded, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellant was a driver of the Fiesta. In my respectful opinion, the decision of the Magistrate was wrong.
- Accordingly, I will allow the appeal and set aside the convictions entered on 22 June 2009 and sentences imposed by the Magistrate on 24 June 2009.
I direct verdicts of acquittal on each of the charges.”
Permalink
Posted in Crime and Society, International Law, Law in a Changing Society, Uncategorized at 3:15 pm by admin
At various times, advocates for the return of capital punishment gain traction in public debate and in the media. However, a bill introduced on 19th November 2009 in the federal parliament will when enacted prohibit Australian states and territories from ever re-introducing the death penalty. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill 2009 (Cth).
Whilst the death penalty will never again be an option for Australian states, it continues to operate in many countries particularly in Asia, the Middle East, and USA. 90% of the world’s execution occur in Asia where there is popular support, in particular in China, Indonesia, and Singapore for its retention
See Legal Studies for Queensland Vol One 10.5 p230 and Legal Studies for Queensland Vol Two, Capital Punishment..
Permalink
Posted in Crime and Society, Technology at 3:12 pm by admin
A woman who is is being tried for the murder of her partner googled the internet to search “pre-meditated + murder + penalties” shortly before he was found strangled in a lounge chair in their home west of Brisbane. This is relevant inofrmation to establishing whether she had the required intention to kill or do GBH – the mental element required under s302 QCC.
This was reported in the Brisbane News at http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/grandmother-googled-murder-penalties-before-expartners-death-court-20091125-jqzy.html?sms_ss=email
For information on murder see: Legal Studies for Queensland Vol 1 7:3 pp131-134.
Permalink
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 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
Next entries » · « Previous entries