Stay up to date with the latest from the QCCL
In our submission, these powers should cease at sunset because they remain disproportionate to human rights protections in Australia, their (limited) use does not justify their continued existence and ultimately, they are better repealed to be the subject of the outcome to the Electronic Surveillance Framework.
Read More. Why then has the police service deployed the resources of a squad specially prepared and trained to meet serious violence in this case? Many members of the public might well conclude from this that these individuals were engaged in terrorism, when plainly they were not
Read MoreThe Internet should not be regulated as a broadcast medium and yet that is what the Online Safety Act does.
Read MoreThis legislation was introduced in 2004 at the peak of concerns about terrorism. Since then, we have learned that the law inappropriately prioritizes the secrecy of national security information over the administration of justice
Read MoreThis broad definition of ‘information’ and over-classification of what amounts to ‘national security information’ has serious implications. Anything that could fall within these definitions could be withheld from the defendant (or, in civil proceedings, withheld from one party[1]), which relates to issues of due process discussed above. These broad definitions and scope of the Act increased the encroachment of the executive on due process and a right to a fair trial. As a result, the executive is given ‘enormous scope for unwarranted interference in the administration of justice’
Read MoreThe Collaery, McBride and Boyle cases have to be seen as part of a new trend whereby evidence is admitted into court and is available to one side (the prosecution, in criminal matters) but not to the other even though that evidence may be used against them. The circumstances in which this evidence is selectively admitted is much broader than the previous public interest immunity exception placed on national security. Much leeway is being granted to the Executive to exclude evidence from scrutiny
Read MoreAs John Stuart Mill argued the preventive power of the State is, “far more liable to be abused, to the prejudice of liberty, then the punitory function; for there is hardly any part of the legitimate freedom of action of a human being that would not admit of being represented, and fairly too, as increasing the facilities for some form or other of delinquency.”
Read MoreA Human Rights Act is not a panacea, ultimately only an active citizenry can protect our rights and liberties. However, the Act will provide a new tool that citizens of this State can use to protect themselves
Read MoreIt is extremely alarming that some parts of our government seem to think they should be protected from scrutiny by the elected representatives of the people of the country. This is an anathema to any Democrat.
Read MoreIt is actions that should be the subject of criminal sanctions not indications of support or involvement in political organisations. All of the conduct which is alleged against the organisations to be proscribed which is said to justify that proscription could be the subject of an ordinary criminal charge.
Read More
