Australian International Law Blog

A blog about all things relevant to the Australian Legal industry, international law and human rights. Have a suggestion or a post? Add it to our submissions

Posts tagged queensland

Nov 11 '12

☻

Human Dignity: Prisoner’s rights in Queensland

The right to be treated humanely and with dignity is espoused in the 1969 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 10. Under this articulated human right, detainees have the right ‘to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person’. It follows that in Australia, the Parliament affords the same right within its legislative frameworks regarding those subject to imprisonment.

Fieldwork in Queensland shows the contrary. Notwithstanding Queensland’s greatest recorded drought ended with its greatest recorded flood in 2010-2011, prisoners in correctional centres in South-East Queensland are still subject to water restrictions. In some cases, prisoners have reported being limited to 5-6 flushes of the toilet per day, others have reported that showers are limited to 4 minutes per person per day – making it difficult to maintain hygiene and sanitation for large inmates. The argument has been, in a number of these privately run correctional facilities, which prisoners have been in the practice of flooding their cells. As a consequence of this behaviour, some prisoners are subjected to staying in water-free cells for up to 4 hours at a time.

The arguments seem tenuous. On one side there is a basic human right to water and sanitation (as recognised in the UN Human Rights Committee’s adoption of General Comment 15 of the 2010 resolution recognising the human right to water and sanitation), in addition to the right to be treated with dignity. On the other side, there is a need to maintain order and to prevent prisoners from hurting themselves and others (and in some cases, the property of the correctional centres).

The complexity of the issue increases as the policies of water use vary across the number of Queensland correctional centres. Water limitations seen in South-East Queensland are not prevalent in Central Queensland nor in Northern Queensland. The complaints made by prisoners affected are not numerous either. Prisoners who are affected and who report come from one major correctional facility. There’s limited argument to be made according to numbers.

So why should we care?

The issue is minimal, yes. Although this does not detract from the major issue – the lack of cogent policy surrounding water rights and dignity in general. Without action, it is entirely possible that further disturbances in the treatment of prisoners could become apparent in light with political calls for mandatory sentencing.

It is said that the measure of a civilised community is the treatment of the lowest of the group, without policy recognition of humane treatment and dignity afforded to our prisoners, our society is left with very little.

Jul 25 '12

☻

“I just bashed somebody up. Don’t worry about it Mum, he’s only a poof”: The “Homosexual Advance Defence” and Discursive Constructions of the “Gay” Victim

“Gay men and lesbians in Australia are over represented in statistics

regarding victims of violent crime and this over representative

proportion is increasing. With respect to male homicide, 37 cases,

representing 10% of all male homicides in New South Wales between

1990 and 2000, were recorded as gay-hate violence. In a report

produced by the New South Wales Attorney General’s Department’s

Working Party in 1998, the term ‘homosexual advance defence’

(HAD) was adopted to describe cases in which “an accused person

alleges that he or she acted in either self-defence or under provocation

in response to a homosexual advance made by another person.”

Although the working party’s use of non-gendered language seems

laudable, it disguises the fact that in all the cases cited in the report the

victim and the accused were male. While HAD is a label for a

phenomenon and is not legally recognised as a separate plea in

Australian criminal law, the underlying principles of this defence have

been incorporated into the existing pleas of self-defence and

provocation as the definition and concepts of these defences are

ambiguous and pliable.”

1 note Tags: gay panic defence law NSW Queensland New South Wales Human rights LGBTI

Jul 24 '12

☻

Queensland Government’s “secret” attacks on the LGBTIQ minority

It has been brought to my attention that there seems to be a systematic attempt at removing the rights of Queenslanders who are in the LGBTI community. This systematic attack has taken form in the Premier’s and Attorney-General’s denial to contemplate removing the “Gay Panic” defence, citing that since the April 2011 amendments to the Provocation Defence in the Criminal Code, the law has yet to be tested.

The message sent by a spokesperson for the Newman government (because this issue seems to not be important enough for the government to consider replying in person) is that a person has to die, at the hands of someone who brings up the “gay panic” defence as an excuse for extreme violence, before the government will consider removing it from Queensland’s laws.

Another example of the Newman government’s and Jarred Bleijie’s systematic attempt at removing rights for those in the LGBTIQ community is the swift paced amendments to the Civil Unions legislation and Surrogacy laws.

It is clear that Queenslanders did not vote for this. As a Queenslander myself, I did not vote to be socially placed decades behind other developed nations, where our education system is in far more need of repair as we have the lowest education rates than any other OECD country.

I request those who are concerned with the rights of fellow human beings to sign Rev Fr Paul Kelly’s petition on change.org

1 note Tags: gay panic law Queensland government Jarred Bleijie LGBTIQ human rights

Jul 24 '12

☻

Look Before Leaping Into A Human Rights Quagmire

July 17, 2012 by LawGovPolicy

Over the weekend reports emerged of comments made by the Queensland Attorney General Jarrod Bleije that the Queensland government was considering ‘naming and shaming’ repeat juvenile offenders.[1] Our local paper took up this issue on Monday 16 July with an article based around the opinion of a father whose son was a victim of a child offender who was named under the current provisions of the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld). [2]

Limitations have been imposed on naming child offenders as a result of Australia’s international obligation to respect a child offender’s privacy at all stages of proceedings and to take into account the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration in society.[3] Specifically, ‘[i]n principle, no information that may lead to the identification of a juvenile offender shall be published.’[4] These rules were developed on the basis of criminological research that revealed that labelling children produces detrimental effects.[5] A 2008 report by the NSW Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice accepted the evidence in this regard, noting that the stigmatisation may ‘potentially lead to increased recidivism’.[6] Following this report the prohibition on the naming of juvenile offenders in that State was maintained.[7]

We encourage the Queensland Government to act only on the basis of sound research.

It has been reported that Attorney-General Bleije was ‘not afraid for Queenslandto stand alone on the issue.’[8] But Queensland would not be the first to have expanded powers to name young offenders. The Northern Territory already has such provisions in the Youth Justice Act 2005(NT).[9] Research relating to that legislation, conducted by Robyn Lincoln and Duncan Chappell found that:-

* Naming is detrimental to the young person. It may result in harassment and/or disruption to their educational prospects;[10]and
* Identification of young people in that jurisdiction translated to reporting in the media in a haphazard manner. [11]

Specific deterrence of offenders is partly achieved by adequate rehabilitation. Measures that impede positive reintegration into the community act adversely to that purpose. Further, effective general deterrence is reliant upon consistent and adequate media reporting, not evident in the case of the Northern Territory.

Secondly, it has been reported that Attorney-General Bleije noted that the current youth justice strategy was defective, citing statistics that ‘more than 30 per cent of young people in detention centres were repeat offenders.’[12] Presenting this information suggests that the Attorney-General believes that naming repeat offenders will result in a different outcome, presumably reduced offending and lower numbers of children in detention. A similar line of argument was presented to the New South Wales Standing Committee. In response the Committee stated that it did ‘not accept that juvenile recidivism can be directly linked to the section 11 prohibition on naming children involved in criminal proceedings. There is a wide range of factors contributing to juvenile recidivism rates and the Committee is not aware of any research that indicates not publicly naming juvenile offenders is one of those factors.’[13]

Thirdly, naming youthful offenders can be harmful for victims of crime as well. While there is a lack of empirical evidence on this point there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that the continual rehashing and naming of individuals can impact on the victims of crime, especially in small communities or among indigenous groups where families are known to one another.[14]

Fourthly, where there is the capacity to name there is also the capacity to seek suppression orders or argue against naming and this can delay proceedings and result in greater expense to the community.

Finally, in some instances it may be argued that the expense and negative effects of naming are appropriate in the public interest. However, it must be remembered that Queensland judges already have the discretion in the interests of justice to name children charged with life offences that involve violence against a person that are particularly heinous.[15]

Assistant Professors Jodie O’Leary and Robyn Lincoln, Bond University

Tags: Law government policy lawgovpolicy blog juvenile prisoners name and shame courts Australia Queensland Jarred Bleijie Attorney-General

Jul 11 '12

☻

Mandatory Sentencing to Clog Judicial System

The Queensland Law Society has spoken out, in a media release on Monday, to the proposed introduction of Mandatory Sentencing in Queensland. The QLS has stated that it would cost Queensland taxpayers up to $70,000 per prisoner per year. This cost is additional when considering the implications of mandatory sentencing on Judges, Prosecutors and juries as more trials and slower guilty pleas would result.

2 notes Tags: mandatory sentencing queensland Newman government Law Justice