Joseph Craig
Various state legal bodies have opposed the new bills that are controversial and intend to give the police more powers. On Monday, there were two bills that were passed by the Parliament giving the state police new powers. One of the powers was related to serious crime prevention orders (SCPOs) while the other to public safety orders (PSOs).The NSW Law Society raised alarm and claimed that as much as the laws were meant to target criminal activities, it could also be used wrongly on individuals who were innocent and haven’t been charged with any offence.
The NSW Law Society raised alarm and claimed that as much as the laws were meant to target criminal activities, it could also be used wrongly on individuals who were innocent and haven’t been charged with any offence.
“The new bills add to the list of continuing trend of bills infringing individual liberties and rights,” said President Gary Ulman. He added that the new bills could seriously impact individual freedoms since they included serious orders meant for crime prevention against a wide range of people. Mr. Ulman said that the new law would prevent people from attending special venues in case the police issued ‘public safety orders’. He noted that the breach of such an order would lead to punishment extending to a maximum of five years prison term. As a matter of fact, there are some circumstances whereby the police are given powers to carry out warrantless search. Hence, this significantly expands police powers.
Gary Ulman said that the community needs to be concerned since he was also concerned with the new bills powers. He said the powers could lead to eroding popular human rights including right to be protected against double punishment, the right to access property, right to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence.
The Bar Association condemned the proposal and described it as unnecessary and unconstitutional threat to human rights and individual freedoms. The statement was made following submissions released this week.
The Association added that regardless of whether an individual intends to commit or has committed any offence, the power to implement PSOs could lead to much interference with freedoms and liberty. It added that the powers would limit freedom of movement, expression, association and assembly to be granted to the police are very broad and did not consider any procedural safeguards. Therefore, it was subject to legally objectionable and flawed oversight given that there are numerous elements of injustice.
The NSW Bar association strongly opposed the bill because it occurred without any prior consultation with appropriate civil liberties organisations, law reform agencies or legal professional bodies. In addition, the Bar Association also claimed that the government hasn’t given sufficient answers explaining the reason behind granting the police such powers. To make matters worse, there has not been any explanation or public debate about the bill explaining why such far-reaching and broad powers need to be granted to the police.
