Page 2750 - Week 09 - Thursday, 27 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
disappointing, therefore, that each year we see ACTION drivers and passengers and private vehicle drivers and passengers experience a number of rock or object throwing incidents. Throwing rocks or other objects at vehicles is extremely dangerous for all concerned. Some of these incidents have already caused minor injuries and they do have the capacity to cause serious harm. It is important that the public are aware that these types of incidents are occurring and that they should contact the police if they see people behaving suspiciously along the side of a road or on an overbridge. The safety of road users, including bus passengers and drivers, is of prime concern. We view this type of attack as criminal behaviour that needs to be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I would like to address first of all the issue of what penalties are available for these types of offences. Contrary to the assertions made by those opposite, there are very serious penalties available to prosecutors and to the police when it comes to these types of incidents. The penalties attached to these offences are stern and they are consistent with those of other jurisdictions. For example, the ACT Criminal Code sets out the offence of damaging property. A person commits this offence where they intend to cause, or they are reckless about causing, damage to property belonging to someone else. The penalty for this offence is a fine of up to $110,000, imprisonment for 10 years or both. So that is in respect of crimes against property. Clearly, that would relate to damage caused to a motor vehicle, a bus and so on.
With respect to crimes against a person, the Crimes Act 1900 states that a person commits an offence if they recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm. A person who commits this offence is liable to 10 years imprisonment. The Crimes Act also includes a set of provisions that makes acts endangering a person’s life or health criminal offences. A person who intentionally and unlawfully interferes with any conveyance or transport facility in circumstances likely to endanger human life or cause a person grievous bodily harm can also be found guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment of up to 10 years. So there are very significant penalties already in place. For acts endangering health, where there is intentional and unlawful interference with a transport facility, a convicted person can also be liable for imprisonment of up to five years.
These offences were consciously cast broadly to capture a range of offensive behaviour. The reason for this is simple: broadly framed provisions with a general application avoid the technical difficulties and loopholes that come with having numerous slightly different provisions with similar effect across ACT law. Having simple and straightforward provisions that capture a broad range of offences and intentions ensures that police and prosecutors are able to do their job with maximum ease. The generalising of criminal prohibition makes the law easier to understand, simpler to prosecute, more accessible to the community and more sensible overall.
The understandable desire to add, and keep adding, specific criminal offences to the criminal law as a response to an immediate demand to do something about emerging problem behaviour should be resisted unless there is clear evidence that the existing criminal law does not address the problem. It is not good social policy to end up with criminal legislation which re-creates the mistakes of the past. It is also not good policy to recommend the enactment of specific offences just to make a political point with a particular sector of the community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .