Two months ago, "Jihad" Jack Thomas walked free from an Australian courtroom after his convictions under anti-terrorism laws were quashed due to lack of evidence. Despite that, he was immediatelly slapped with a control order, subjecting him to a midnight - 5am curfew, requiring him to report to police three days a week, and requiring that he seek written permission in order to make phone calls. In essence, he has been sentenced to parole, despite having been acquitted of any crime.
Now, Thomas is challenging that order - and with good reason. The imposition of a Control Order after acquittal clearly breaches the common law bar on "double jeopardy". And the way in which they are granted - by a judge acting in secret, with no representative of the accused present, and therefore no ability to contest the "evidence" presented - is a clear violation of the principle of natural justice. In New Zealand (or any other civilised country), such a system could be challenged under the Bill of Rights Act (or its equivalent). Unfortunately, Australia is not a civilised country, and has no constitutional protection for human rights. Still, double jeopardy and natural justice are principles recognised in Australian law, and fairly deeply ingrained at that, so Thomas may be successful despite the lack of constitutional protections. We just have to cross our fingers and hope...
4 comments:
Every week a dozen or more New Zealanders (usually men), by a judge acting in secret, with no representative of the accused present, and therefore no ability to contest the "evidence" presented have Domestic Protection Orders taken against them.
Without being convicted of anything they are denied access to their children, often their home and furniture and are prevented from possessing firearms (which, for those in the military can be rather career-limiting).
Ex parte hearings, even in matters with criminal-like consequences have their place (applications for arrest or search warrants etc.) - the treatment of Thomas may be objectionable, but it is not double jeopardy.
Posted by Graeme Edgeler : 10/03/2006 11:28:00 AM
1, Is there a system for appealing Dom Pro orders?
2, do you need a firearms liscense to carry firearms 'on the job' as a millitary officer?
seriously, i dont know the answers.
I suppose its how you look at it.
A Dom Pro order can be interpreted as a method for legally seperating two hostile parties (or 1 hostile party from a fearfull party) so that the matter can be sorted out.
not being well versed in law - especially this part of the law - and its application to everyday life, i am reduced to pure speculation.
This (if my assumption is correct)is quite different to imposing controls on a party that has already been found to be innocent by the courts.
How many of this "dozen or so" have had these orders placed on them after being acquitted of a charge that the order relates to?
How many of the same group have had the orders placed on them because someone (rightly or wrongly) believes that they will get the shit beaten out of them before they can resolve the situation (if at all)?
If these orders are anything like the situations where i have seen tresspass orders taken against someone, you need to build a history of incidents before the police will take action. (again - could be wrong, thats just my experience)
fraser
Posted by Anonymous : 10/03/2006 05:41:00 PM
1. Yes. As there is a system for challenging control orders;
2. I don't know whether you need a firearms licence, but you certainly need to be able to possess firearms (i.e. if you've been served with a domestic protection order you commit a crime and can go to prison if you touch a firearm whether you've a licence or not).
Acquitted? Probably not many (certainly some), but never even charged/never going to be charged - a fair number.
One breach of a protection order is/should be enough to see the police come running...
Posted by Graeme Edgeler : 10/03/2006 07:39:00 PM
anon - ever stopped to think that the term 'terrorist' is completely subjective?
After all - one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
also the man in question isnt a terrorist as far as the courts are concerned - so whats your point again?
who decides who the terrorists are? you? me? the USA? Israel? Palestine? Serbians? Croatians? English? Irish Nationalists? or should we just shoot them all?
Graeme - just to clarify, my experience of tresspass orders is that you need to build a history before the order will be served. re-read my comment and noticed it could be interpreted in two or m ore ways
fraser
Posted by Anonymous : 10/04/2006 09:08:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).