Sydney Institute of Criminology
CrimNet
06 May 2022
|
|
|
|
The CrimNet newsletter is sponsored by the Sydney Institute of Criminology. CrimNet provides regular communication between criminal justice professionals, practitioners, academics and students in Australia and overseas. Share CrimNet with your peers and help grow the network.
We acknowledge the tradition of custodianship and law of the Country on which the University of Sydney campuses stand. We pay our respects to those who have cared and continue to care for Country.
| |
If you are not already subscribed and would like to receive these fortnightly updates, please follow the link here or email law.criminology@sydney.edu.au.
If you would like to contribute a relevant piece, or post news and opportunities of interest to our audiences, please contact law.criminology@sydney.edu.au.
| |
|
Institute Events and Activities
| |
Pandemic Policing Sydney Institute of Criminology Panel Discussion
Date: 18 May, 2022
Time: 6.30 – 8pm
Location: University of Sydney, Camperdown Campus
With the World Health Organisation’s declaration of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020, emergency health orders were introduced to contain the spreading contagion. Central to this aim was the restriction of social movement and gatherings enforced via new criminal offences and expanded police powers.
At the same time, assumed civil rights, such as freedom of movement, eroded with state-sanctioned lockdowns of borders, places of work, study and socialisation as well as targeted communities.
Opposition developed initially in relation to the lockdowns, morphing into anti-vax/anti-mask protests that has seen the increasing influence of conspiracy theorists, right-wing extremists and sovereign citizens.
This panel of diverse experts examines the complexities of policing a pandemic in a democratic society.
Invited guest speakers:
Jane Sanders, Principal Solicitor, The Shopfront Youth Legal Centre
Mick Willing, former Deputy Commissioner NSW Police
| |
Call-out for Higher Degree Research Conference Submissions
The conference will be held on 19-20 July 2022 at The University of Sydney Law School
Crime Stories: HDR adventures in criminal law, justice and criminological research
Abstract submissions close on 20 May 2022
Much of the research which we do in relation to criminal justice, crime research and criminology, centres on stories. What are today’s stories in interdisciplinary disciplines? What are the lenses and filters through which we see stories in criminal justice today? Do we see stories from the past as useful in interpreting today’s research?
Stories about crime, criminal justice and criminology are generated through:
- court transcripts and judgments
- qualitative methodologies such as surveys and interviews
- quantitative methodologies that generate interpretative stories
- images, sounds and digital technologies
- legal history and archives.
Finally, thinking about stories is not limited to narratives arising from research – researchers tell themselves stories about the work they are doing and why they are doing it, and they become the protagonists in their own career stories. Contact: lawcrim.events@sydney.edu.au
| |
Current Issues in Criminal Justice Australia’s major journal on criminal justiceCurrent Issues in Criminal Justice provides detailed analysis of national and international issues by a range of outstanding contributors.
Current Issues in Criminal Justice features 'Contemporary Comments' – discussion at the cutting edge of the crime and justice debate, as well as reviews of recently released books.
It accepts submissions on a rolling basis (there are no submission deadlines).
You can access current and previous issues of Current Issues in Criminal Justice here.
| |
|
Visiting Scholar Professor Katherine Biber presents at the Sydney Institute of Criminology's Seminar Series
| |
The Last Outlaw: Making a nation from the crimes of Jimmy Governor
On April 27 2022, at the Institute's monthly meeting, Professor Katherine Biber presented a paper that attempts to map some of the numerous lives and biographies that converge around the figure of Jimmy Governor. Convicted of multiple murders on the eve of Australian Federation, Jimmy Governor was Australia’s last outlaw. Variously imagined as an Indigenous freedom fighter, axe murderer, or aggrieved labourer, Governor is an enigmatic and usually-silent character at the centre of an epic nation-making project. Usually understood as a law-breaker, Katherine's project aims to situate Governor as an active agent of law-making.
Katherine Biber is a criminologist, historian and legal scholar and Professor of Law at the University of Technology Sydney. Her most recent book is In Crime's Archive: The cultural afterlife of evidence. She is Co-Editor in Chief of the journal Crime, Media, Culture. She is currently writing a legal history of Jimmy Governor. She is a visitor at the Sydney Institute of Criminology until June 2022.
| |
In One Generation: The National Women’s Safety Alliance Federal Election Policy Statement May 2022
Maybe for the first time in Australia’s history, gender-based violence and women’s safety are key issues in a federal election. It comes following decades of dedicated work by experts, victim-survivors and advocates to highlight the issue, dispel myths and promote understanding across the Australian community.
In One Generation outlines the first actions that must be taken during the next parliament to end gender-based violence. It is based on consultation with the National Women’s Safety Alliance’s membership – which includes the domestic, family and sexual violence sector, people with lived experience, experts, community leaders and employers. These tangible, measurable actions – taken together – will bring us closer to preventing gender-based violence, intervening early before violence escalates and providing better support for those affected from crisis to recovery. No one should be unsafe just because of who they are. That is why we must end gender-based violence in one generation. Renee Hamilton CEO, National Women’s Safety Alliance
| |
ANROWS: Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, New Report
Adverse childhood experiences and the intergenerational transmission of domestic and family violence in young people who engage in harmful sexual behaviour and violence against women
Substantial gaps exist in understanding how sexually violent behaviour towards women and children emerges and evolves in young people. Child maltreatment and domestic and family violence (DFV) have been identified as contributing factors towards criminal and violent behaviour, and females and males are exposed to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) at similar rates. However, young males commit a significant proportion of sexual violence against women and children. The current research addresses sexual violence committed by young people through focusing on childhood developmental factors including gender development, ACEs and DFV.
This ground-breaking project will enhance our understanding of the factors contributing to the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in the criminal justice and child protection systems. It will examine the intersection of these factors with the intergenerational impact of family violence and inform the development of appropriate policy responses. The project directly aligns with Closing the Gap (Australian Government, 2020) targets of reducing the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in the criminal justice and child protection systems (targets 11 and 12, respectively) as well as significant and sustained reduction in violence and abuse against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children (target 13).
| |
JIRS Judicial Commission of New South Wales
New Bench Book Publication, 30 March 2022
| |
BOSCAR
Crime and Justice Bulliton Number 248, Aprill 2022
Evarn J. Ooi and Sara Rahman
Aboriginal young people referred to the YKC were substantially less likely to be sentenced to a JCO. The estimates from both the regression and DiD models were similar: the main regression specification indicated that YKC participants were 5.9 percentage points less likely to be sentenced to a JCO. This is equivalent to a 40% reduction in the probability of being sentenced to a JCO. The DiD estimate indicated an 8.1 percentage point reduction. Among those not sentenced to a JCO, YKC participants were 7.6 percentage points less likely to be sentenced to a JCO at re-conviction within 12 months of index court finalisation. Each of these reductions were statistically significant. Furthermore, there were statistically significant reductions in sentencing and recidivism outcomes among young people with no prior custodial episodes and those charged with at least one violent or property offence at index court finalisation
| |
BOSCAR Victim survey results from July 2008 to June 2020
Bureau Brief Number 158, April 2022
Karen Freeman
It is estimated that in NSW over 40,000 persons aged 15 and over experienced at least one episode of physical violence by an intimate partner or family member within a 12 month period. This equates to approximately 650 per 100,000 persons or approximately one in every 155 persons. The survey data suggest that the prevalence of physical DFV in NSW did not change significantly over the time periods examined. This finding support trends in the rate of domestic violence related assault recorded by NSW Police which also remained stable in the 15 years to September 2021.
| |
Sentencing Advisory Council VIC
The Sentencing Advisory Council has released six new Sentencing Snapshots.
The Snapshots present data on the sentencing practices of the Victorian Supreme and County Courts (including changes made by the Court of Appeal) over the five years to June 2021 for the offences of:
| |
Sentencing Advisory Council VIC
The Sentencing Advisory Council has released its report on the number of people sentenced in 2020–21 for committing a serious offence while serving a community correction order (CCO).
The report examines the:
- number of people on a CCO each year
- rate at which CCOs are contravened by serious offending
- type of serious offences committed by people on a CCO
- gender and age of people who committed serious offences while on a CCO
- percentage of people on a combined order (CCO plus imprisonment) at the time they committed a serious offence
- time from the start of a CCO to the commission of the earliest serious offence.
The Council has also published a complete list of serious offences current between 16 January 2012 and 30 June 2021 to accompany the release of the report.
| |
Global human rights watchdog puts Australia on notice
Following several controversial appointments to the Human Rights Commission, a global watchdog has raised concerns about its independence.
Australia has been given 15 months to address concerns about commissioners being handpicked by the government, or face being downgraded by the International Standards Body.
Guest: Justine Nolan, Director, Australian Human Rights Institute
Geoffrey Watson SC, Director, Centre for Public Integrity
Producer: Cathy Van Extel
Duration: 9min 50sec
Broadcast: Fri 8 Apr 2022, 8:05am
| |
|
In the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
| |
R v DB [2021] NSWCCA 87
On 29 April 2022, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA) published its judgment in the above case. Colin Phegan Senior Lecturer and Director of the Sydney Institute of Criminology, Dr Andrew Dyer, has provided the following analysis.
In the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal: R v DB [2021] NSWCCA 87 – Is ‘Sexsomnia’ a ‘Mental Health Impairment’?
Facts
On two separate dates in 2019, the respondent, DB, touched his daughter sexually while she was lying in a bed alongside him. He did not do so voluntarily. Rather, as the Crown conceded at DB’s trial on three counts of intentionally sexually touching a child under 10 years (see Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 66DA(a)), DB was asleep at the time of the relevant conduct, and had behaved as he did because of ‘sexsomnia’, a condition described by Brereton JA as ‘a parasomnia or form of somnambulism (sleepwalking) in which a person engages in sexual activity while asleep’: [4]. The legal question that arose concerned what should be done with DB. Because it is fundamental that a person cannot be held criminally liable in respect of involuntary (or unwilled) conduct, it was clear that DB was not criminally liable. But was his ‘sexsomnia’ a ‘mental health impairment’ within the meaning of s 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (‘the Act’)? If so, he could not hope to secure an unqualified acquittal. Instead, he would be granted a special verdict of ‘act proven but not criminally responsible’ (see s 30 of the Act) on the basis that his ‘sexsomnia’ had the effect that he did not know the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his conduct: see s 28(1) of the Act. He would then be liable to be detained indefinitely in a suitable institution: see s 33(1).
The trial judge, Weinstein DCJ, found that the accused’s condition was not a ‘mental health impairment’ and therefore granted DB unqualified verdicts of acquittal. The Crown appealed.
The NSWCCA’s decision
All members of the NSWCCA appeared to agree that, if the common law had applied, DB would have been granted an unqualified acquittal: [43] per Brereton JA; [151]–[153] per Wilson J; [204] per Ierace J. That is because he would have been regarded as having performed the relevant conduct involuntarily due to a condition other than a ‘disease of the mind’. But their Honours were divided about the question of how relevant the common law position was to the construction of s 4 of the Act.
After engaging in an extensive (though perhaps not exhaustive – see R v Parks [1992] 2 SCR 871) review of the common law authorities, Brereton JA (with whom Ierace J agreed) held that the Act did not require a different result from that which would have been reached had the common law applied. The Act gives effect to recommendations of the NSW Law Reform Commission’s 2013 Report, People with Cognitive and Mental Health Impairments in the Criminal Justice System: Criminal Responsibility and Consequences: [48]. According to Brereton JA, neither in that Report nor in the Second Reading Speech for the Bill that became the Act was there anything ‘to indicate that there was the slightest intention to affect the ability of an accused person’ to obtain an outright acquittal on the basis of involuntary conduct: [52]. The Report, his Honour observed, did not refer to the ‘defence of sane automatism’ at all; and, ‘far from abandoning common law concepts relevant to [the] mental illness [defence] … it largely retained them, “using more contemporary language”’: [49].
Coming to the provision that the Court had to interpret, Brereton JA noted that s 4(1) of the Act states that a person has a ‘mental health impairment’ if, relevantly, s/he has: (a) a ‘temporary or ongoing disturbance of … volition’; (b) ‘the disturbance would be regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes’; and (c) ‘the disturbance impairs [the person’s] … behaviour: [47]. Concerning (a), his Honour held that, in this case, the applicant had no ‘disturbance of volition’ within the meaning of s 4(1)(a): [60]. Rather, he had a total absence of volition, due to sleep (at [56]). In other words, the appellant’s ‘sexsomnia’ caused no loss – or ‘disturbance’ – of volition (at [58]); he had already surrendered his volition when he fell asleep (at [56]; [60]); and his sexual conduct was produced, not by a ‘lack of volition, but presumably the action of the subconscious mind’: [59]. In so holding, Brereton JA made it clear that the ‘absence’ of a particular faculty can sometimes amount to a ‘disturbance’ of that faculty within the meaning of s 4(1)(a): [58]. For example, if a person’s dementia causes ‘a complete loss of memory’, there will be a ‘disturbance of … memory’ for the purposes of the clause: [58]. But, in this case, the accused’s loss of volition was caused by an ‘ordinary condition’ (at [56]) – sleep – and not by the accused’s ‘sexsomnia’.
Turning to s 4(1)(b), Brereton JA held that there was here, additionally, no ‘disturbance’ that ‘would be regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes’: [62]. Again, the accused’s loss of volition was caused by sleep. ‘It does not require expert evidence to observe’, Brereton JA said, ‘that there is absolutely no clinical significance to a person lacking volition while they are asleep’: [62].
In dissent, Wilson J indicated that, in her view, the majority had attached too much significance to the common law position and too little significance to the text and purpose of the legislation that their Honours were required to construe: [164]–[167]; [189]; [192]; [200].
Justice Wilson said that, once the text of s 4(1)(a) was viewed, as it had to be, ‘without regard to historical considerations’, ‘a “disturbance of volition” must include volition that is so disturbed as to be in abeyance altogether at the material time’: [168]. Were it otherwise, her Honour argued, ‘a person with a condition leading to the complete absence of memory’ would not fall within the terms of the clause: [169]. It simply could not have been Parliament’s intention, Wilson J continued, to provide that persons with conditions totally depriving them of one of the faculties of which s 4(1)(a) speaks – ‘thought, mood, volition, perception or memory’ – were no longer to be institutionalised indefinitely if they performed conduct that, but for their respective conditions, would have been criminal: [171].
When it came to s 4(1)(b), Wilson J held that, ‘[a]s with the construction of s 4(1)(a) there is nothing in the text of this provision that would confine its meaning’ in such a way as to exclude the appellant from its reach: [179]. While the appellant’s condition was seemingly not a ‘disease of the mind’ for the purposes of the common law, ‘that phrase was swept away by the [Act]’: [179]. Contrary to what the trial judge had thought, the Act’s purpose is not to treat as ‘mental health impairment[s]’ only those conditions that are amenable to psychiatric treatment: at [182]; [188]. Nor was it ‘simply [to] translate the common law into statute’: [192]. Its purpose, Wilson J said, was instead to ‘codify and modernise the law that relates to persons with a mental health or cognitive impairment’, taking into account the need to protect the community: [192]. Her Honour noted a number of provisions in the Act that indicated Parliament’s concern, not merely to provide for the involuntary treatment of individuals with mental health problems, but also to ensure that dangerous individuals were prevented from causing further harm: [183]–[187].
Justice Wilson concluded that the appellant’s ‘sexsomnia’ was a ‘disturbance of volition’ (s 4(1)(a) that ‘would be regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes’ (s 4(1)(a) and ‘impair[ed]’ his ‘emotional wellbeing, judgment or behaviour’ (s 4(1)(c)): [196]. He therefore had a ‘mental health impairment’ within the meaning of s 4 of the Act – and the trial judge had been wrong to grant him an unqualified acquittal. His Honour should instead have found that, due to a ‘mental health impairment’, the appellant ‘did not know at the time he did the acts their nature and quality, or that they were wrong’: [201]. Contrary to the trial judge’s apparent view – see [198]; cf [68] per Brereton JA – the mental health impairment defence does not just apply to those who are acting consciously and voluntarily (at [199]; see also Brereton JA at [69]–[70]); and his Honour should therefore have granted a special verdict.
Discussion
The majority’s reasoning seems preferable to that of Wilson J.
As Brereton JA noted, the common law has for many years granted an outright verdict of acquittal to the person who kills involuntarily due to his or her being in a state of somnambulism. See, eg, the well-known statement of Stephen J in Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168, 187:
Can anyone doubt that a man who, though he might be perfectly sane, committed what would otherwise be a crime in a state of somnambulism, would be entitled to be acquitted? And why is this? Simply because he would not know what he was doing.
It is true, as Wilson J said, that, in DB, the Court had to consider, not the common law, but NSW legislation that, since 2020, has placed the mental illness defence – which it has re-named the defence of ‘mental health impairment or cognitive impairment’ – onto a statutory footing. But it is submitted that, contrary to Wilson J’s view, it is far from clear that, on its proper construction, that Act brings about reasonably radical changes to the scope of that defence and the ‘defence of sane automatism’. Given that, as Brereton JA pointed out, there was no reference to the latter ‘defence’ in the relevant NSW Report or Second Reading Speech, it is difficult to accept that the legislative purpose really was further to protect the community by enlarging the circumstances in which a special verdict is to be granted. Further, the textual considerations that Wilson J thought significant, seem inconclusive. While, as her Honour observed, there is nothing in the text of ss 4(1)(a) or (b) that mandates the majority’s conclusion (at [179]), there is nothing in that text that mandates hers either. Ultimately, Wilson J’s conclusions might largely be based on an argument from unlikelihood. It will be recalled that Honour thought it improbable that Parliament intended a person with a condition that causes a complete absence of volition, memory etc to be granted an unqualified acquittal: [169]; [171]. But, as Brereton JA expressly stated, under his approach most such persons would not be treated in such a way. His Honour carefully limited his reasoning to the case of ‘the sleepwalker’. Because this person’s absence of volition is caused by sleep, not somnambulism, his or her conduct does not result from a ‘disturbance of volition … [that] would be regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes’ (to cite the language of s 4).
To see the decision of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal see here.
| |
|
Publications
All open access unless indicated.
| |
Minister For Home Affairs V Benbrika And The Capacity Of Chapter III Of The Commonwealth Constitution To Protect Prisoners’ Rights
Andrew Dyer. Volume 45(1) UNSW Law Journal 209 Abstract: In recent cases in which prisoners have used Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution to challenge draconian legislation, the High Court of Australia (‘HCA’) has deployed formalistic reasoning when rejecting their claims. The latest such case was Minister for Home Affairs v Benbrika (‘Benbrika’), where a majority upheld the continuing detention order scheme created by Division 105A of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), essentially on the basis that imprisonment is not necessarily punishment. Judges should never use such reasoning to avoid striking down laws that breach Chapter III. When they do so, they fail properly to hold power to account. However, the result in Benbrika seems largely justified. Judges are rightly cautious about using Chapter III to strike down punitive laws; and, as Edelman J showed, the Court in Benbrika could exercise restraint without resorting to formalistic evasion. His Honour correctly acknowledged that the HCA has only a limited ability to protect unpopular minorities.
| |
A Fairy Tale Gone Wrong: Social media, Recursive Hate and the Politicisation of Drag Queen Storytime
Justin Ellis. The Journal of Criminal Law
Abstract: Words can wound. However, the negative labelling of certain groups through the criminal law, medicine and psychology can result in stigma long after certain conduct in some jurisdictions, such as same-sex attraction, has been decriminalised and formally depathologised. Drag Queen Storytime (DQS) childhood literacy events at public libraries and bookshops in the USA and related incidents in Australia and the UK between 2018 and 2020 became sites of networked online and offline hate. This article documents and analyses this outrage against DQS events. The article shows how Christian anti-LGBTQ hate groups and activists, and far-right groups, continue to justify bias-motivated hateful conduct based on medico-legal and pseudo-scientific stigmatisation of same-sex attraction and gender fluidity. The article also shows how this hate can be amplified through networked online and offline hate, and vice versa.
| |
Estimating the costs of serious and organised crime in Australia, 2020–21
Russell Smith & Amelia Hickman. Statistical Report no. 38. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology
Abstract: This report estimates the cost of serious and organised crime in Australia in 2020–21 to be between $24.8b and $60.1b. This is the third in a series of reports undertaken for the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimating the cost of serious and organised crime. It updates and improves on the methodology used in the previous report, which estimated the cost of organised crime in 2016–17. As with the previous research, this report considers the direct and consequential costs of serious and organised crime in Australia, as well as the costs to government entities, businesses and individuals associated with preventing and responding to serious and organised crime. While the current estimates were undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic and may reflect changes in criminality resulting from the pandemic, the full economic impact of serious and organised criminal offending committed during the pandemic will not be known for some time. It is clear, however, that the impact of serious and organised crime on the Australian economy is substantial.
| |
Drug use monitoring in Australia: Drug use among police detainees, 2021
Alexandra Voce & Tom Sullivan. Statistical Report. no. 40. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology
Abstract: In 2021 the Drug Use Monitoring in Australia program collected survey (n=2,223) and urinalysis (n=716) data from police detainees across Australia. Seventy-seven percent (n=553) of detainees who provided a urine sample for analysis tested positive to at least one type of drug, less than in 2020 (82%). Around half of the detainees tested positive to methamphetamine (50%) or cannabis (45%), one-fifth tested positive to benzodiazepines (18%) or opioids (18%), whereas very few tested positive for cocaine (2%) or MDMA (<1%). Self-reported past-month methamphetamine use was stable for most of 2021 until it declined in October–November, while past-month cannabis use increased in July–August. Nationally, methamphetamine and heroin each cost $50 per point on average, whereas cannabis cost $17 per gram.
| |
Law Enforcement and Public Health: Partners for Community Safety and Wellbeing
Isa Bartkowiak-Théron, Clover, J and Martin, D and Southby, R and Crofts, N. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. ISBN 9783030839123 This book brings together the views of multidisciplinary commentators on a wide range of issues and disciplines within the law enforcement and public health arena. The book addresses the conceptual aspects of the relationship as well as applied fields of collaboration, and the authors describe and analyse a range of service delivery examples taken from real-life instances of partnerships in action.
| |
Sensing the border(s): Sound and carceral intimacies in and beyond indefinite detention
De Souza, P. and Russell, E. K. Crime, Media, Culture This article examines a sound-based digital project co-created with refugees and asylum seekers held in indefinite detention in Australia and Papua New Guinea to advance understandings of the sensory violence of borders – and resistance to borders – and their reordering of intimate realms. In where are you today (2020), refugees/asylum seekers catalogued their carceral environments in 10-minute sonic vignettes which were distributed to listeners daily via text message, for 30 consecutive days. Drawing on sensory methodologies and feminist orientations towards the intimate, the article considers how this sound project alerts us to an alternative sensory politics attuned to the quiet, quotidian and exhausting labour of resisting Australia’s racialised border regime. Through a close listening to selected recordings, we argue the intimacies shared through where are you today produce knowledge about embodied practices of care, breath, touch and waiting in indefinite detention. Networked, transborder sound projects can unsettle both incarcerated and non-incarcerated subjects’ relationships to their environments, opening affiliative possibilities for coming into relation with the border(s) in new ways. We conclude that the project’s creators forge and sustain carceral intimacies within and despite the border’s affective violence, and that sound is a particularly affective and evocative means of conveying and creating these intimacies, in and beyond indefinite detention.
| |
Command Responsibility, Australian War Crimes in Afghanistan, and the Brereton Report
Douglas Guilfoyle, Joanna Kyriakakis and Melanie O’Brien. Volume 99. International Law Studies
This article examines the question of command responsibility for war crimes under international and Australian law, and how far such responsibility extends. It uses the results of the Brereton Report, an Australian investigation into alleged crimes committed by its special forces in Afghanistan, as its starting point. While this is very much an Australian case study, the concerns it raises should be of interest to all professional militaries. In any command responsibility case, key questions will usually include: who knew what, when; and what were they obliged to do about it? The article also provides an important case study of the implications when national legal standards adopted for war crimes prosecutions differ from the provisions of international law.
| |
DVNSW Conference 2022
Date: Thu 12 May 2022 and Fri 13 May 2022
Time: 8.30am to 5pm
Location: NSW Teachers Federation Conference Centre, 37 Reservoir Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010
Paid Event
It has been an extremely tough two years for the domestic and family violence sector, with increased demand for our already stretched services amidst the pandemic. We are grateful to each and every one of you for your hard work, hanging in there, and continuing to provide vital services in challenging circumstances. When consulted on the format of this year’s conference, you, our members, gave us resounding feedback that you wanted to come together for a face-to-face event. We will meet on the Gadigal land of the Eora Nation, for the first time in over two years.
Our theme is Reconnect, Re-Energise and Redesign. You will re-connect with your colleagues from across the State and make new connections. You will be re-energised as you listen to our diverse range of speakers and panellists, who will inspire, challenge and engage us in robust conversations. We will celebrate our work, listen to marginalised voices and reflect on what we can collectively do to redesign the system to create real and positive change. You will notice that many of the priorities in DVNSW’s Strategic Plan 2021-2024 feature heavily in our program including primary prevention, children and young people as victim-survivors in their own right and advocating for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander as well as Culturally and Linguistically Diverse communities to live safely and free from gendered violence. We invite you to take a closer look at the program and speaker bios in anticipation for the event. Elise Phillips – Interim CEO
| |
AIFS 2022 Conference: Putting Families at the Centre
Date: Pre conference workshops - 14 June 2022,
Conference dates - 15 - 17 June 2022
Time: 9am to 5pm
Location: Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre (MCEC), 1 Convention Centre Place, South Wharf VIC
Paid Event
Join thought-leaders, researchers, policy makers, practitioners and change-makers for three days of insights, inquiry and thought-provoking discussion about putting families at the centre.
Families are evolving all the time: making choices about how they live and organise their lives within the social and economic conditions affecting them. But how well do our governments, the economy and service systems put families at the centre of their decision making? And do they listen to the aspirations of families and make space for their perspectives in designing solutions intended to address their needs?
The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) 2022 Conference will imagine a future where putting families at the centre drives the work of researchers, policy makers, and service providers.
Who should attend?
AIFS 2022 Conference is a must if you are a researcher or policy maker, or if you design, deliver or evaluate services for families, children and their communities.
Reasons to attend
- Be inspired by emerging evidence and promising practice from Australia and beyond.
- Access to a dynamic program of workshops, plenary presentations, panel discussions, e-posters and symposiums.
- Unparalleled opportunities to network with delegates across sectors and disciplines.
- 98% of conference attendees would recommend to others.
- Thanks to the pandemic, it’s the first AIFS Conference since 2018!
| |
Lecturer in Criminology, Newcastle Law School
Deadline: 11 May 2022
The Lecturer in Criminology will contribute to quality teaching and learning and research outcomes within Criminology and Law , including the planning, preparation, co-ordination and delivery of courses (online and face-to-face) within the suite of undergraduate offerings in the Newcastle Law School.
The Lecturer will demonstrate the capacity for independent research and the capacity to secure external funding, with social justice, gendered violence, criminal law and procedure, media criminology, cyber security and forensic science particular areas of interest. A key aspect will be the maintenance and expansion of collaborations with industry partners, and the support and development of work-integrated learning opportunities for students and research opportunities for staff.
Level B lecturers are typically early career researchers who are motivated to develop their career across research, teaching, and service within the University, and keen to apply their experience and knowledge to make a difference in the justice system. In working towards career progression at the University of Newcastle, they are expected to deliver teaching and research innovation and engage with the Newcastle Law School’s priorities, which include impact and engagement within the justice sector
| |
Postdoctoral Research Fellow/ Research Fellow in Contemporary Threats to Australian Security (x3 Positions), Charles Sturt University
Deadline: 20 May 2022, 11pm
Location: Canberra
A number of newly created opportunities exist to join research groups funded under the University’s Sturt Scheme.
Candidates will play a key role in driving research outcomes by working across various externally funded projects as assigned by the Academic Project Research Lead, supporting and collaborating with project teams in all aspects of research design and execution. The Fellows will also assist with developing grant applications, and preparing journal manuscripts, research reports, and other project outputs and communications.
- Seeking expertise in terrorism, financial crime and policing/ security
- Drive research outcomes and join a collaborative research team
- Facilitate external engagement and research grant activity
- Strategically partner with industry, government and our communities to focus on key areas in research
| |
John O'Brien Memorial Coursework Scholarships
Deadline: 31 May 2022
The John O'Brien Memorial Coursework Scholarships in Criminal Law and Criminology was established in 2008 by a bequest for a memorial fund in perpetuity named the John O'Brien Memorial Fund. It provides support for students studying criminal law and criminology at the University of Sydney Law School.
The scholarship is valued at $10,000 per year if you are enrolled full-time (24 credit points per semester)
You must:
- have an unconditional offer of admission for the Master of Criminology at the University of Sydney Law School
- have achieved a Weighted Average Mark (WAM) of 70 or equivalent in your previous tertiary studies.
Note: Students who have already commenced their Master of Criminology, or students transferring from other postgraduate programs are not eligible to apply.
| |
Call for Papers for 2022 Special Issue ‘COVID-19 AND TRUST IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS’ open for submissions, Criminal Justice Review
Deadline: 1 June 2022
The COVID-19 pandemic shaped the public’s trust in authority, such as the police, corrections and the government. While pandemics are not common, they cause significant mortality, social and economic disruption, widespread fear, and panic (Potter, 2001).
- Contributions are invited to engage with the following questions:
- How has the fear of COVID-19 impacted the public’s trust in police, corrections or courts?
- How has the fear of COVID-19 impacted the public’s trust in the government? •
- How has COVID-19 illuminated mistrust of CJ systems?
- How has COVID-19 put a spotlight on social justice issues?
- How has COVID-19 put strains on disenfranchised populations and how does this intersect with CJ systems
To encourage inquiry in this area, the Editors of Criminal Justice Review seek studies that examine how COVID-19 impacted and highlighted trust in criminal justice systems and the government. Accepted papers will appear in a special issue to be published in 2023. Accepted papers will be published ahead of print in OnlineFirst.
This special issue is now open for submissions. All abstracts must be emailed to the guest editors at joselyne_nkogo@uml.edu and amber_ruf@uml.edu
For questions about this call for papers, please contact the Special Guest Editors, below. JOSELYNE CHENANE NKOGO AND AMBER HORNING RUF University of Massachusetts, Lowell, School of Criminology and Justice joselyne_nkogo@uml.edu amber_ruf@uml.edu
| |
Nominations for the 2022 Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Awards (ACVPA) are now open!
Dealine: 14 June 2022
The annual Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Awards (ACVPA) recognise and reward programs that reduce crime and violence in Australia. The awards encourage public initiatives, and assist governments in identifying and developing practical projects which will reduce violence and other types of crime in the community.
Any government agency, not-for-profit organisation or individual person making a significant contribution to a project in Australia can be nominated for an award. Projects may address specific groups such as rural and remote communities, women, children, youth, family, migrant, ethnic or Indigenous communities, or specific problems such as alcohol-related violence.
For more information on the awards, please visit the ACVPA website.
| |
Call for Submissions: Safer Communities youth justice special issue
Deadline: 29 August 2022
This special issue focuses on “theory and practice of co-production and co-creation in youth justice” settings. This is timely, given the noticeable shift towards a participation culture as part of the Youth Justice Board’s Child First agenda in England and Wales (YJB, 2021) and recommendations for pursuing increased participatory rights-based practices to facilitate children’s meaningful involvement in the design, delivery, and evaluation of youth justice services (Peer Power/YJB 2021).
The editors anticipate the articles in this special issue will present evidence and research both nationally and internationally, on how to reverse unequal power dynamics by utilising children’s knowledge and expertise, while also gaining trust and empathy through the sharing of lived experiences. More specifically, this involves discussion on how principles of co-production can be utilised in the field of youth justice with those under supervision.
Essentially, the purpose of this special issue is to offer a critical perspective on the facilitators and barriers to the theory and practice of co-production and co-creation in youth justice.
Potential areas of interest include (but are not limited to):
- How Child First, restorative, trauma informed, and desistance-based models can be co-produced/co-created.
- Typologies, theories and models of participation and co-production.
- Arts-based programmes and interventions
- Experiential peer support and mentorship
- Co-producing resources to address access problems and to enhance engagement
- Perspectives from practitioners and those with lived experience
- Educational development projects and collaborative approaches to curriculum design and delivery
| |
Indigenous Academic (All levels), University of Melbourne
Deadline: 24 Oct 2022, 11:55 PM
Only Indigenous Australians are eligible to apply as this position is exempt under the Special Measure Provision, Section 12 (1) of the Equal Opportunity Act 2011 (Vic).
This call for Expressions of Interest seeks talented First Nations scholars to join the Faculty of Arts, at any level and in any of the Faculty’s disciplinary fields.
They invite the submission of a CV and a cover letter outlining (1) your research agenda, (2) your teaching experience, (3) relevant partnerships and community engagement, and (4) your interest in the Faculty of Arts. On review of the EOI, they may choose to invite a more detailed application encompassing key selection criteria at a level commensurate to experience. Reviews of EOI will take place three times a year, at the end of February, June and October.
| |
BLOG: POLICE KILLINGS IN AUSTRALIA
By Professor Mark Finnane
With the focus on the recent prosecution of Zachary Rolfe for the 2019 shooting death of Kumanjayi Walker at Yuendumu, in the Northern Territory, Professor Mark Finnane at Griffith University has written a short article reflecting on the importance of Richard Harding’s ‘Police Killings in Australia’ study, published by Penguin Books in 1970.
| |
Would you like to contribute to CrimNet?
Contact us to share your criminal justice news, publications, events or job opportunities. There is no cost involved. Simply email us with your information.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
