Plans for Closure of Criminals’ Name-Change Loophole

Under proposed amendments to the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) announced by the Hon Jack Dempsey MP, Minister for Police, a loophole regarding convicted criminals changing their names will no longer be available in Queensland.

Laws currently exist which require prisoners and certain convicted offenders to obtain permission to change their name from either the chief executive of Corrective Services or the police commissioner, depending on the situation.  The Courier-Mail recently reported that there is presently no law preventing such persons from “acquiring a new identity” as there is no obligation on the registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (BDM) to inform the police of any changes in name for such persons. 

The Courier-Mail reported further that:

36 convicted offenders, including several murderers, rapists, fraudsters and a child abuser on parole or probation, had successfully applied to the Community Safety Department to change their names through the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (BDM) since 2008, but police were not notified.

Mr Dempsey has indicated that he intends to “close the loophole and ensure police were informed of any name changes”.  He also stated that he has requested his department “to make changes to the Corrective Services Act to stop any prisoner in custody, on probation or parole changing their name”.

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”.

 

Regulation of Bikie Gangs

In August 2009, when the Queensland Parliamentary Library published a Research Brief entitled Regulating Bikie Gangs (RBR No 2009/18), a number of Australian jurisdictions, including Queensland, were responding to a perceived increase in motorcycle club (‘bikie gang’) related violence through targeted policing operations and/or legislation.  A similar situation has again arisen and many of the issues discussed in the Brief remain relevant.  

Recent months have seen an escalation of bikie gang related violence, particularly in New South Wales and Queensland.  An incident which has gained significant media coverage, community unease and strong police and Government reaction was the shooting at Robina Shopping Town on the Gold Coast in late April 2012, resulting in the wounding of a bikie gang member and an innocent 53 year old female shopper.

Sentencing double jeopardy

In very broad terms, the principle of double jeopardy is said to protect a person from being twice placed in jeopardy of conviction or punishment for the same matter.  When applied in the context of sentencing, it refers to the anxiety and stress presumed to be involved in being re-sentenced.

The origin of the use of the phrase “double jeopardy” to describe the situation faced by a defendant when the Crown appeals against sentence is usually ascribed to the 1979 Federal Court decision in R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 while the development of the common law principle in the Australian context is said to owe much to sentencing jurisprudence developed by the High Court: for an historical overview, see Director of Public Prosecutions v Karazisis [2010] VSCA 350. 

New offence for dangerous management of a dog

On 1 December 2011, the Hon P Lucas MP, Attorney-General, Minister for Local Government and Special Minister of State, introduced the Law Reform Amendment Bill 2011 (Qld) into the Queensland Parliament. 

A key objective of this Bill is the introduction of a specific new offence into the Criminal Code of dangerous management of a dog resulting in the death or grievous bodily harm of a person through an attack (proposed new s 334A).  A person responsible for such a dog will be liable to a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. 

The Bill provides that a person ‘manages a dog dangerously’ if he or she manages a dog in a way that is dangerous having regard to all the circumstances, including, for example:

• the age, size and strength of the dog;
• the past conduct of the dog, its training and temperament;
• the current medical and physical condition of the dog;
• whether the restraint of the dog was appropriate in all the circumstances;
• for the use of a dog to protect persons or premises – whether the use of the dog is appropriate in all the circumstances;
• for a person who has control of the dog and who permits someone else to have actual custody of the dog – all the circumstances in which this happens, including, for example:
• the choice of the other person;
• the conditions on which custody is permitted or allowed; and
• the information and instructions provided to the other person.