Partial Defence of Provocation: Non-violent Sexual Advances

Uncertainty over whether provocation caused by an unwanted homosexual advance will form the basis of a partial defence to murder may soon be resolved with the Sunshine Coast Daily reporting on 7 June 2012 that the Queensland Attorney-General, the Hon Jarrod Bleijie MP, had asked the Department of Justice and Attorney-General to brief him on the issue.  The Attorney-General was quoted as saying ‘the LNP supports, in principle, the concept that persons should not be able to rely on [provocation] simply because of a minor touching incident or unwanted sexual advance’.

Just prior to the 2011 State election campaign, the then Queensland Attorney-General in the Bligh Labor Government, the Hon Paul Lucas MP, announced a proposal to amend the partial defence of provocation contained in s 304 of the Queensland Criminal Code to ensure that it could not be used where the defendant has received an unwanted sexual advance from the deceased, unless there were exceptional circumstances.

Tougher sentences for murder, serious assaults on police and repeat serious child sex offenders

On 20 June 2012, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Hon Jarrod Bleijie MP, introduced the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2012 (Qld) and the Criminal (Two Strike Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill 2012 (Qld) which, among other things, amend existing laws to increase jail time for murderers, perpetrators of serious assaults on police and repeat child sex offenders.

This legislation is in line with the LNP’s 2012 election campaign policies to apply tougher sentences for serious offenders and protect children.  Key elements of these policies included:

• increasing the non-parole period for murder from 15 to 20 years imprisonment;
• introducing a new offence of murder of a police officer with a non-parole period of 25 years imprisonment;
• increasing the non-parole period for multiple murders from 20 to 30 years imprisonment; and
• increasing the maximum penalty for a serious assault on a police officer from 7 to 14 years; and
• introducing a “two strikes” policy for repeat child sex offenders.

The Attorney-General has stated that “[t]hese tough new penalties send a clear and strong message that these offences simply won’t be tolerated”.  In response, the President of the Queensland Council of Civil Liberties, Mr Terry O’Gorman has commented that “the changes would prevent a judge or magistrate from sentencing on the peculiar facts of each case and would cause injustice”.

 

The Aboriginal Tradition and Torres Strait Islander Custom Exemption in the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Qld)

In the lead-up to the March 2012 Queensland state election, the LNP announced that, if elected to government, it would, amongst other things, remove the Aboriginal tradition and Torres Strait Islander custom exemption from the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Qld), with the aim of protecting dugongs and turtles.  The exemption means that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders undertaking traditional hunting and fishing are not liable to a penalty if they are cruel to an animal.   The Bligh Labor Government, if it had been re-elected, had intended to address issues arising from the exemption through education rather than legislative change.    

The issue of the inhumane killing of turtles and dugongs by indigenous hunters was brought to the fore in March 2012 by a story on 7:30 on the ABC.  In the segment, covertly obtained footage of a turtle being butchered before it died and a dugong being towed to its death behind a boat was shown.  Following the airing of the report, the Bligh Government instigated an investigation “into claims … about cruelty to turtles and dugongs and illegal poaching in far north Queensland”.  The investigation was jointly conducted by the then Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) (looking into the allegations of poaching) and the then Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI) (looking at the cruelty aspect).    

Gift cards on the national agenda - an update

It has been estimated that Australians purchase about $1.5 billion worth of gift cards annually.

Despite their popularity, gift cards have increasingly been the subject of complaints in recent years.  Common consumer concerns relate to:

·    expiry dates (a November 2010 survey by consumer advocate group, Choice, found that:

·    almost all gift cards Choice looked at expired after only one year;

·    of the survey participants, three out of four reported buying or receiving a gift card in the previous year but more than half of those reported that their card expired before they were able to use its full value);

·    at the time of the survey only one retailer, Bunnings, offered a gift card with no expiry date);

·    what happens to gift cards when the issuing business ceases to trade, and

·    who should pocket the interest that accumulates on unredeemed gift cards. 

It is also often the case that, if the full amount of a gift card is not used, consumers will not receive cash change for the remaining balance, leading to concerns about card issuers reaping windfall profits.

In addition, the terms and conditions for gift cards vary significantly between retailers, and consumers are not always provided with a copy of these prior to purchase.