|
Hulls in clash on charter of rights |
Natasha Robinson theaustralian.news.com.au
06 July 2007
THE Victorian Attorney-General has placed himself on a possible collision course with the judiciary and legal profession over controversial legislation aimed at keeping high-risk sex offenders in jail beyond the end of their prison terms. Under the Victorian Human Rights Charter, brought in this year by the Bracks Government, from January the state's Supreme Court will have the power to issue a declaration that it regards certain legislation as being inconsistent with the charter, forcing the Attorney-General to respond in parliament. Legal experts rate the likelihood of a judge of the Supreme Court issuing such a declaration on the Government's proposed continued detention legislation for high-risk sex offenders as high, regardless of how carefully the Government drafts its legislation.
Surprisingly, the Victorian Centres against Sexual Assault joined in opposing the proposed law, on the basis that resources could be better directed at community awareness campaigns and encouraging sex assault victims to come forward, rather than a costly scheme to punish a few extreme offenders.
Professor Evans said she did not want to guess whether the Supreme Court would be likely to use its powers to issue a declaration that any continuing detention legislation was incompatible with the human rights charter. But she said the issue of retrospectivity was likely to be a significant point of conflict between the court and the Government.
That issue was raised in strong terms in a submission by the Supreme Court to the Sentencing Advisory Council. Though not expressing a view on the merits of continuing detention legislation, the submission criticised detaining a person based on risk of future offending, rather than as punishment for past conduct."
A spokeswoman for Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls said the Human Rights Charter specified that no right was absolute.
In its report, the SAC said the Human Rights Charter was not necessarily incompatible with any expected legislation, but said there were two key questions for the Government to consider.
Firstly, there had to be evidence that supported the need for such a scheme. Secondly, the Government had to consider whether there were any less restrictive means of achieving community protection from high-risk offenders.
Quoting from a report by criminologist Karen Gelb, the council said that "studies around the world have consistently found that rates of recorded reoffending are particularly low for sexual and violent offenders.
"These studies provide evidence of higher rates of general recidivism but low rates of recorded homologous recidivism (reoffending by committing further sexual and violent offences)."
On the second point, the council came down in favour of beefing up Victoria's extended supervision order scheme as a cheaper and more effective way of protecting the community. |
