Posts in Submission
Submission to Transport and Resources committee concerning Engine Immobiliser Technology

the first question that must be addressed is whether the technology is actually going to reduce harm caused by police chases. The chase must presumably have to start. There must still have to be a police policy dealing with the circumstances in which chases will be commenced, even if they are intended to be relatively short because this technology will be available.

Overseas discussions of this issue make reference to avoiding problems with other vehicles by implementing technology in all cars which enables each car to react to the presence of another vehicle.

This then brings us to serious other issues connected with this type of technology. Those issues relate to the fundamental rights of privacy and freedom of movement.

Read More
Submission re – proposed amendments to mobile phone road rules

we reiterate that a solution to the issue of driver distraction is not capable of resolution via the use of artificial intelligence to detect offences. On the terms of the amended primary legislation, this simply means that the power to enforce law becomes easier and automated. An increased ease by which law may be enforced is not a legitimate means to addressing the issue of distracted drivers

Read More
Criminal Code (Consent and Mistake of Fact) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

We submitted that the law should reflect the proposition that in determining whether or not an accused’s belief that a person was consenting was reasonable, the jury should be able to take into account whether the accused was aware of circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to inquire further into the issue of consent. So that if the circumstances known to the accused were such that a reasonable person would not or might not take further steps to ascertain consent, then the accused will not be required to take any further steps either.

Read More
Consent and the excuse of mistake of fact in sexual assault cases review

There is a difference between how our Criminal Code deals with the defence of mistake and how the Common Law deals with it. At common-law, a person will succeed in a defence of mistake of fact, if they held the belief in the mistaken fact honestly. However, under the Queensland Criminal Code the mistake of fact defence can only succeed when a person not only honestly has made a mistake, but their belief is reasonable.

Once again, public commentary on this issue seems to ignore the fact that Queensland law already provides for a mixture of subjective and objective factors in assessing whether or not the accused has made a mistake of fact. In particular, in our review of the law we found no support for the view that “reckless indifference” would ever be consistent with the reasonableness requirement in the Criminal Code

Read More
RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION BILL AND RELATED LEGISLATION -SECOND DRAFT

We can accept that there is a case, as there is in relation to churches, that such spaces are kept exclusively for the believers. Though it is our view, that the draft bill needs to be amended to make it clear that it is restricted to facilities dedicated to such spiritual purposes. Again, it is our position, that should the religious body make these facilities available on a commercial basis, they lose the right to avail selves of this exception. We also make the comment, that it is not clear to us why this is not covered by clause 36.

Read More
RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION BILL AND RELATED LEGISLATION

Religious worship is essential to most people's lives. This is true for non-believers as well as believers once we recognise that freedom of religious worship includes the freedom not to worship.

Once we accept that proposition the only generally acceptable basis for freedom of worship is equal freedom for everybody. Each person when considering their own claim to be able to worship freely, would reject a proposal that gave them less freedom to do so then another person.

Religious belief is primarily a matter of individual conscience. However, freedom of religion also encompasses the freedom to manifest one’s belief in community with others and in public. This is because witness in words and deeds is bound up with the existence of religious convictions.

Read More
Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme

Domestic and family violence is an ongoing scourge in our community. We do not think it necessary to repeat what is already well-known about the level of family and domestic violence and the harm that it does. These statistics are in any event, well summarised in the discussion paper.

However from a Civil Liberties point of view whilst the prevention of harm is a necessary condition for government to take action it is not a sufficient condition.

ln taking action to protect members of the community from harm, the state has to have regard to the
rights and liberties of other individuals. ln particular, before interfering with the rights and liberties of others it is that fundamental that the State demonstrates that the proposed measure will be effective at protecting the members of the community it is intended to protect.

Read More
Publication of allegations of corrupt conduct made to the CMC

The right to free speech and the right to a fair trial are two of the most cherished values in a civilised society. However, they can and do come into conflict. Traditionally under our legal system this conflict has been resolved by effectively prohibiting the disclosure of allegations against a person until they have reached a stage where there is sufficient evidence to support a charge. At that point limited publicity is permitted. And then full publicity occurs at the time of trial. We support that traditional arrangement. Two reasons are traditionally given for this approach. The first is to protect the reputation of persons. Secondly to protect their right to a fair trial.

Read More
Submission to Queensland Human Rights Inquiry

In the Council’s view the case for a Human Rights Act is quite simply irrefutable.  In saying that the Council does not think that a Human Rights Act will constitute a revolution in either sense.  That is, a Human Rights Act will not create a human rights nirvana in Queensland.  Nor will it wreck the separation of powers between the branches of the government or destroy our democracy.  What it will do is represent a bold statement of commitment by the Queensland Government to bring human rights closer to the heart of political culture in this state and provide a place where the marginalised and disadvantaged in our community can seek redress for their grievances.

Read More