Page 2584 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Association, who had sat in on the minister’s evidence because they had not seen what he had to say either, went away and did the work on jurisprudence that had not been done by the department.
I would refer members to the evidence given by Mr Walker, the President of the Bar Association, in particular starting at page 40 of the transcript of the committee inquiry. I will do some selective quoting, because it highlights the problems with the approach taken by the government and the principal reason why the committee took the view that this bill, or this aspect of the bill, should not be supported. The Bar Association did the work about jurisprudence which had not been done elsewhere. Mr Walker talked about the long legal history of the right of self-defence, which goes back 700 or 800 years. He and other members made the point that this was not a mere technicality, which was the case being put forward by the department, but that this is something long ensconced in law. It was the view of the Bar Association that government officials are bound by the law in just the same way as citizens are.
The case that the government relied upon most was a case from the state of Wisconsin, the case of Hobson and Wisconsin, and I will quote some of what Mr Walker had to say about the case of Hobson and Wisconsin. But Mr Walker also went on to make the point that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin was an elected Supreme Court and that perhaps one would need to have some concern about the jurisprudence and how it would apply to a common law jurisdiction like the ACT which does not have an elected Supreme Court. Mr Walker said:
In Hobson and Wisconsin, as I said, the lead case that has been cited for overturning this, the facts were that Ms Hobson was the mother of a five-year-old. The police thought the five-year-old had stolen a bike. The police went around and wanted to question the five-year-old. Ms Hobson decided she was not going to have her son inquired of in this fashion.
Reading from the judgement—and it is worth reading—Ms Hobson, according to the officer, became a bit irritated and refused to allow Officer Shoate to speak with her son. She said that her son did not do anything and had not stolen any bike. Officer Shoate then told Ms Hobson that he would have to take her son to the police station to be interviewed about the stolen bike and gave Ms Hobson the opportunity to go along to the station. She replied that the officer was not taking her son anywhere. At that point in the conversation, because of Ms Hobson’s resistance, Officer Shoate called for backup—
this was a mother protecting her five-year-old son—
… police officers to assist him.
Shortly thereafter, various other officers attended the house of Ms Hobson and, according to one of those officers, when the backup officers arrived:
Ms Hobson was standing with her son on the front steps of her residence and was yelling, swearing … in a very loud voice.
I suspect that is what most mothers would do if a police officer came around and said, “We want to take your five-year-old down to the station for questioning about a stolen bike.” The evidence continues:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video