Hansard debates
Search Hansard
Search help
|
|
|||||||
SUMMARY OFFENCES AND SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL 2013
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
12 December 2013
Statement of Compatibility
CLARK
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
SUMMARY OFFENCES AND SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL 2013 Statement of compatibility Mr CLARK (Attorney-General) tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006: In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the 'charter act'), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Summary Offences and Sentencing Amendment Bill 2013. In my opinion, the Summary Offences and Sentencing Amendment Bill 2013, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the charter act. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement. Overview of bill The bill amends the Summary Offences Act 1966 by expanding the grounds on which police members and protective services officers (PSOs) may direct a person to move on from a public place, and enabling police members to apply to the Magistrates Court for an exclusion order where they have repeatedly been directed to move on from a public place. The bill also amends the Sentencing Act 1991 by creating a new alcohol exclusion order that prohibits a person who has been convicted of a relevant offence, in circumstances where the person's intoxication was a significant contributing factor, from entering or consuming liquor in specified licensed premises in Victoria. Human rights issues Changes to move-on powers and the related exclusion orders The bill expands the grounds on which the move-on powers under section 6 of the Summary Offences Act may be used. A person who is directed to move on from a public place by police members or PSOs must leave that public place and is prohibited from returning to it for up to 24 hours. The related exclusion orders also prohibit a person from entering a particular public place but for up to 12 months. The amendments impose a limitation on an individual's right to move freely within Victoria as set out in section 12 of the charter act and may, in certain circumstances, limit the rights to freedom of expression (section 15), and peaceful assembly and freedom of association (section 16). However, for the reasons that follow these limitations are consistent with explicit or implicit internal limits on the rights or are reasonable and justified under section 7(2) of the charter act. All of these charter act rights can be subject to restrictions, including to protect public order, public safety and the rights and freedoms of others. Section 15 contains an explicit internal limitation to this effect (section 15(3)), but the other sections may be implicitly limited in the same way (in accordance with the reasoning in Magee v. Delaney [2013] VSC 407). In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, from which each of these charter act rights is derived, there are express internal limitations for each of the rights in relation to measures that are necessary to protect public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others (see article 12(3) on freedom of movement, article 19(3) on freedom of expression, article 21 on peaceful assembly and article 22 on freedom of association). Although these internal limitations do not appear in the relevant charter act rights, the internal limitations in the international covenant illustrate matters that may be considered to justify limitations on those rights in accordance with section 7(2). The new grounds for the use of move-on powers are aimed at protecting public safety and order and the rights and freedoms of others. The grounds ensure there is an appropriate balance between the right to freedom of movement, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and freedom of association of one individual and the protection of the rights of others, including the rights of others to freedom of movement, privacy, property rights and security. These are important objectives that are sufficient to justify the bill's careful and safeguarded provisions and any limitations those provisions may impose on these charter act rights. The bill includes a range of safeguards that minimise effects on the relevant charter act rights and ensure any limitation is reasonable. A police member or PSO may tailor a move-on direction as required. For example, a direction can be given in respect of an entire public place, or just part of that place. The duration of the direction cannot exceed 24 hours and need not be for the full 24 hours. The making of an exclusion order by a court is discretionary and the court must be satisfied that an order would be a reasonable means of preventing that person from continuing to behave in a manner that would be the basis for another move-on direction. The court can tailor the scope of the order. For example, it may determine the nature and extent of the public place that the order applies to, and the duration of the order. Similarly, new section 6E(5) of the Summary Offences Act enables the court to allow a person to enter a place to which the exclusion order applies for specified purposes where it is appropriate. Exclusion orders may also be varied upon application where the court is satisfied it is appropriate. There are also specific safeguards around the enforcement of move-on directions and the related exclusion orders. For example, a person does not commit the offence of contravening a move-on direction where he or she has a reasonable excuse for doing so. A similar exclusion applies to the offence of contravening an exclusion order. Section 6(5) of the Summary Offences Act excludes the use of move-on powers based on the grounds set out in section 6(1)(a) and new section 6(1)(f) in relation to a person who is picketing a place of employment, demonstrating, protesting or publicising his or her view about a particular issue. That exception will no longer apply to the grounds in sections 6(1)(b) and (c) nor to the remaining four new grounds. Those grounds are more closely related to unlawful conduct and a move-on power on those grounds should not be excluded simply because a person is engaged in picketing, protest or publicising a view. The application of these
Page 4681
grounds in such circumstances will assist police in protecting the rights of others and maintaining public safety and order. Power to require name and address The bill creates a new power enabling police members and PSOs to require a person being directed to move on to provide their name and address. The right to privacy set out in section 13 of the charter act is relevant to this power. However, in my view this provision is compatible with the right to privacy as it is lawful and not arbitrary. Police will only be able to utilise this power where they intend to direct a person to move on. This new power will enable police to keep track of when a person has been repeatedly moved on for the purposes of applying for a related exclusion order. It will also assist police in determining whether a person contravenes a move-on direction. The use and disclosure of that information would be subject to the usual protections under the Information Privacy Act 2000. Arrest power The bill inserts a new power into the Summary Offences Act, which provides that a police member or a PSO may, without warrant, arrest a person if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person is or has committed an offence against section 6(4) of the Summary Offences Act (contravention of a move-on direction). In my view these provisions are compatible with the right to liberty as the grounds for arrest are clear and appropriate, and cannot be regarded as arbitrary. Section 6(4) also provides safeguards that minimise interference with liberty by expressly limiting the reasons for which a person may be detained in custody. Alcohol exclusion orders Alcohol exclusion orders prohibit a person from entering into a range of licensed premises including nightclubs, bars, restaurants, reception centres and major events. These orders limit the right to freedom of movement and are relevant to the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association. Alcohol exclusion orders are aimed at protecting public order and the rights and freedoms of others, including the right to life and the right to liberty and security of a person. The orders may only be made after a person has been convicted by a court of a relevant offence and the court is satisfied that the offender's intoxication significantly contributed to the commission of the offence. There is a clear and rational connection between the limitation on the right to freedom of movement and the purpose of the order. Before making an order, a court must be satisfied that the person was intoxicated at the time of the offending. Further, that intoxication must have significantly contributed to the offending. Thus, any person subject to an order has demonstrated through their offending that they are a risk to public safety when intoxicated. The alcohol exclusion order will reduce that risk by ensuring the person cannot enter or consume liquor in many places where they could otherwise become intoxicated in public. The effect of an alcohol exclusion order reflects the significant contribution of alcohol to that offending. Applying the order to a narrower range of licensed venues could channel those subject to the order towards those licensed venues not covered by the order and thus place the public at those venues at risk. The strong, mandatory scheme provided for in this Bill is also intended to provide a clear and powerful deterrent against others committing relevant offences. The deterrence of a discretionary scheme would be undermined by cases where an order is not made. As with the move-on-related exclusion orders, there are safeguards to ensure alcohol exclusion orders do not inappropriately limit other rights. Courts may create conditions where appropriate allowing a person to enter licensed premises for specified purposes. Such purposes might include employment, reaching accommodation, or attending particular events where appropriate. Section 89DG allows a person subject to the order to apply for its variation throughout the duration of the order. Given this capacity to adjust alcohol exclusion orders appropriately if justified by a person's individual circumstances, I do not consider that they create an unreasonable limitation on the right to freedom of movement when balanced with the important objectives of the orders, including public safety and protecting the rights of others. Offences for contravening exclusion orders New sections 6G of the Summary Offences Act and 89DF(1) and (2) of the Sentencing Act make it an offence to contravene a move-on-related exclusion order or an alcohol exclusion order. Sections 6G(3) and 89DF(4) have the effect of placing an evidential onus on the accused where the prosecution adduces proof that the accused was present in court when the order was made, or proof of service of the order on the person. The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law is relevant to these provisions. However, the right is not limited. Where the accused points to evidence that puts knowledge of the order at issue, the prosecution will still have a legal onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the order was in place. Robert Clark, MP Attorney-General