Page 3905 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 15 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But it shows the risks of those sorts of open-ended and subjective laws. What is offensive language and what is offensive conduct? It varies with the individual. This law is different because it relates to a very objective form of behaviour. It relates to fighting in a public place.
Madam Speaker, Mr Moore made a very appropriate comment when he said, "We are really sending a message here that violence is unacceptable". We would endorse that. The Chief Minister, only in the last sittings, brought forward the report on the national strategy to deal with violence against women. We tabled a discussion paper from the Law Reform Committee on domestic violence. We are dealing with issues of violence on a range of fronts, and this is one other way of saying that you do not solve problems with the use of violence. We see this law as quite different from the open-ended and subjective laws such as the move-on power or simple, offensive language or offensive behaviour provisions.
Madam Speaker, a concern was raised by Mr Moore, and had been raised privately by Mr Humphries - a quite proper concern - and that is, "What is the position of someone who claims or can show that they were attacked and were merely acting in self-defence?". I am able to assure the Assembly that that is covered. This is a law which relates to fighting in a public place, and the courts have ruled. The relevant authority is the Queen v. Sharp and another, a 1957 decision, reported in Volume 1 of the All England Reports at page 577 - a decision of Lord Goddard, the then Lord Chief Justice. He said that, if two men are found fighting in a street, one might be able to say that the other attacked him and he was only defending himself. He went on to say that, if he was only defending himself and not attacking, that is not a fight. That is the relevant common law authority that the courts here would go to for the proposition that, when you are merely defending yourself, that is not a fight. So, this law would not apply. If, however, you go beyond self-defence - that is, if the person hits you with a fist and you produce the iron bar - then that is a fight, and you would be properly subject to the law.
Madam Speaker, we will keep an eye on this law. We will monitor its operation. Ms Szuty is right in saying that merely changing the law will not solve the problem. We have to continue with crime prevention strategies. We have to continue working with the industry to make Civic a safer place for Canberra's young people, but this law will help. Rather than talking about increased police powers, we should talk about increased police flexibility.
This law provides a maximum penalty of $1,000. It is a minor summary offence. Currently, the only way to deal with a fight is by laying an assault charge. If one is convicted of assault, one is liable to a penalty of two years' imprisonment - more, if it is a more serious assault and actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm is involved. A young person now would have to be dealt with, if at all, on an assault charge, which means that that person has a conviction for assault on his record. That conviction carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. As members would be aware, that of itself can operate to disqualify a person from various offices. It could disqualify a person from eligibility to join the military forces, join the police force, or engage in various other occupational activities. It is a very serious thing for a young person to have on the record.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .