This power to block parole for decades after a person has already served 20 or 30 years or more in prison will be exercised by the President of the Queensland Parole Board sitting in secret with the process totally lacking in transparency or accountability.
Read MoreWe submitted that the law should reflect the proposition that in determining whether or not an accused’s belief that a person was consenting was reasonable, the jury should be able to take into account whether the accused was aware of circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to inquire further into the issue of consent. So that if the circumstances known to the accused were such that a reasonable person would not or might not take further steps to ascertain consent, then the accused will not be required to take any further steps either.
Read MoreThere is a difference between how our Criminal Code deals with the defence of mistake and how the Common Law deals with it. At common-law, a person will succeed in a defence of mistake of fact, if they held the belief in the mistaken fact honestly. However, under the Queensland Criminal Code the mistake of fact defence can only succeed when a person not only honestly has made a mistake, but their belief is reasonable.
Once again, public commentary on this issue seems to ignore the fact that Queensland law already provides for a mixture of subjective and objective factors in assessing whether or not the accused has made a mistake of fact. In particular, in our review of the law we found no support for the view that “reckless indifference” would ever be consistent with the reasonableness requirement in the Criminal Code
The Council supports a subjectivist approach to the criminal law. Subjectivism relies on the notion that individuals can be considered culpable for harm only where they were at the material time aware of the risk of causing that harm, and thus were able to avoid it. This means that it is important that the defendant voluntarily causes the outcome, either by consciously running the risk of that outcome or by actually intending it.
Read MoreThe right to free speech and the right to a fair trial are two of the most cherished values in a civilised society. However, they can and do come into conflict. Traditionally under our legal system this conflict has been resolved by effectively prohibiting the disclosure of allegations against a person until they have reached a stage where there is sufficient evidence to support a charge. At that point limited publicity is permitted. And then full publicity occurs at the time of trial. We support that traditional arrangement. Two reasons are traditionally given for this approach. The first is to protect the reputation of persons. Secondly to protect their right to a fair trial.
Read More“I can say without knowing the details that a significant number of them despite having been punished according to law, have been sentenced again to a bleak existence without their loved ones, without income and in many cases because they can’t speak the language with no prospect of any meaningful existence in the communities to which they have been sent.”
Read More“The Premier rightly referred the allegations of domestic violence to the Police. Until that process results in Mr Gordon being convicted of an offence which disqualifies him from being a member of Parliament he is entitled to sit and should be allowed to do so without hindrance.”
Read MoreThe Council recognises that this Bill is a response to concerns in the community about alcohol related violence. However, the Council maintains that the response to this issue needs to take into account the right to privacy, the right to freedom of association and the right to due process. All of these rights are recognised in Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The QCCL has as its objective the implementation of the rights contained in this instrument in Queensland.
Read MoreThe Bill undermines the principled asymmetry which is at the heart of the criminal justice system. That principle reflects the proposition that the State with all its resources and powers should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual of an alleged offence.
Read MoreThe NSW Ombudsman in a report released in September this year after a 2 year inquiry found no evidence that the use of sniffer dogs disrupted street dealing in any sustained fashion. The evidence also showed that the use of police sniffer dogs didn’t reduce drug related crime. Nor did their use lead to any increase in perceptions of public safety.
Read MoreAnnual report of the President delivered at the Annual General Meeting on Wednesday 15 March 1995
Read More