Sydney Institute of Criminology
CrimNet
16 March 2023
|
|
|
|
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. Could you share CrimNet with your peers and help grow the network?
The University of Sydney’s central campus sits on the lands of the Cadigal people of the Eora nation and has campuses as well as teaching and research facilities situated on the ancestral lands of the Wangal, Deerubbin, Tharawal, Ngunnawal, Wiradjuri, Gamilaroi, Bundjulong, Wiljali and Gereng Gureng peoples. We pay our respects to elders, past, present, and emerging who have cared and continue to care for Country.
CULTURAL ADVICE: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that CrimNet may contain distressing material and images or names of people who have died.
| |
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
| |
Beyond Punishment Seminar: Transforming rehabilitation through digital technology
Last week the Sydney Institute of Criminology hosted the Beyond Punishment seminar in conjunction with Corrective Services NSW.
The seminar looked at the reality that criminal justice institutions are not siloed from society. As Artificial Intelligence sweeps through the world, transforming everything in its path, the development of technologies in prisons is no exception – and as such, it is necessary to reimagine how digital technologies can be utilised in rehabilitation.
Some of the questions we asked were: what is the role of digital technologies in the context of the rehabilitative aim of prisons? What ought it to be? How is this role likely to develop in the future? And what challenges need to be borne in mind when answering these questions
This event was moderated by Dr Allan McCay, Sydney Institute of Criminology, Deputy-Director and chaired by Dr Carolyn McKay, Sydney Institute of Criminology, Co-Director. Panel Members included Luke Grant, Deputy Commissioner, Corrections Strategy and Governance, Corrective Services NSW, Renee Van Aaken, Acting Director – Reducing Recidivism (Premiers Priority) at Department of Communities and Justice, Steven Van De Steene, Smart Corrections, and Professor Mark Halsey, Flinders University.
| |
|
2022/23 Criminal Law CPD Series
The 2022-23 Criminal Law CPD series, presented by the Sydney Institute of Criminology is an innovative educational program made up of 7 recorded webinars delivered by eminent speakers from the University of Sydney and the legal profession.
Register for the full series or individual webinars and enjoy the flexibility of watching at your own pace from any location at any time. Quizzes will be included to test your comprehension of the material being discussed.
Information for lawyers and barristers
If this educational activity is relevant to your professional development and practice of the law, then you should claim 1.5 MCLE/CPD points per seminar attended.
Practitioners are advised to check with the CPD governing body in their jurisdiction for the most accurate and up-to-date information. Find out about interstate accreditation.
Cost: Full series (7 x webinars) = $300
Individual webinar(s) = $50
| |
Dr Andrew Dyer – Available now
It is common for people to deceive other people into engaging in sexual activity with them. But there is sharp division about whether all such deceitful people should be convicted of a sexual offence and, if all or some of them should, which offence(s) should be convicted of.
| |
Brett Hatfield – Available now
In a system subject to growing case numbers, increasingly regulated pre-trial processes, plea negotiations, and broad discretion, how are those priorities managed? Crown Prosecutor Brett Hatfield will consider those competing priorities and how they are balanced in practice.
| |
Associate Professor Helen Paterson – Available now
Eyewitness testimony can provide critical leads in investigations and can be extremely persuasive in court. However, inconsistencies or inaccuracies in eyewitness accounts can undermine the perceived credibility of the witness and the value of the evidence.
| |
Talitha Hennessy – Available now
During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the administration of justice and essential services of courts continued through the increased use of communication technologies. The shift to digital or virtual justice in both civil and criminal jurisdictions accelerated with varying degrees of success.
| |
Professor David Hamer – Available now
Following the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Uniform Evidence Law jurisdictions are implementing reforms to the tendency and coincidence evidence provisions. These reforms aim to relax the exclusionary rules so that the prosecution can more readily rely upon other allegations against the defendant and the defendant’s prior guilty pleas.
| |
John Stratton SC – Available now
Appearing in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal can be an intimidating prospect. Seeking leave, applications brought out of time, questions of law, questions of fact, mixed questions: senior criminal law barrister John Stratton SC will consider these issues and offer best-practice tips developed over the course of his career.
| |
Judge Paul Lakatos SC - Available now
Balancing the competing priorities of offenders with mental health diagnoses, the community, and the criminal justice system more broadly, is complicated. At the intersection of those interests sits the Mental Health Review Tribunal. The Tribunal endeavours to acknowledge and respect the dignity, autonomy, diversity and individuality of those whose matters it hears and determines. But how are these outcomes achieved?
| |
New Issue Out Now: Current Issues in Criminal Justice, Volume 35, Issue 1 (2023)
Introduction to special issue on criminal law, Andrew Dyer & Arlie Loughnan, 1
This Special Issue arose from the Annual Criminal Law Workshop for Australian and New Zealand criminal law scholars, which was held at the University of Sydney Law School on 7 February 2022. Most of the contributors to the Special Issue participated in that Workshop – either as presenters or commentators or both – and we thank all of them very much for contributing their work to Current Issues in Criminal Justice. The Special Issue concerns recent criminal law and criminal justice developments, particularly (though not only) in Australia; and contributors have dealt with an eclectic range of topics, demonstrating the vibrancy and wide reach of criminal law scholarship. Topics covered are: jury directions in sexual offence proceedings; intimate partner violence; sentencing for infanticide; wrongful convictions; summary justice; the minimum age of criminal responsibility; corporate crime; the law relating to mental incapacity; and the partial defence of provocation. See here
Articles
The most persistent rape myth? A qualitative study of ‘delay’ in complaint in Victorian rape trials, Julia Quilter, Luke McNamara and Melissa Porter, 4
One of the oldest myths to confound the achievement of justice for victims of sexual violence is that ‘genuine’ rape victims complain immediately, loudly and officially. Dismantling this myth—or at least banishing it from the court room—has been a high priority of the modern era of rape/sexual assault law reform. How successful has this attempt been? This article reports on the initial findings of a transcript analysis study of more than 30 rape trials finalised in the County Court of Victoria between 2013 and 2020. We discuss the multiple variations on ‘delay’ that continue to feature prominently in the cross-examination of complainants in rape trials. We also examine the operation of s 52 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) which provides for a mandatory direction if, at any point during the trial, the judge considers that there is evidence suggestive of delay. Ostensibly one of the strongest corrective mechanisms currently operating in sexual offence trials in Australia, we discuss the unevenness of s 52’s operation, and consider the implications for reliance on jury directions more generally. See here
The use of fire and threats to burn in the context of domestic and family violence and coercive control, Heather Douglas, 27
Fire can be harnessed by abusive partners or ex-partners in their efforts to maintain and regain control in an abusive relationship. Reports about the use of fire in the context of domestic and family violence are not uncommon in the media, with incidents of house fires, burning cars and using fire to kill or cause harm and threats to burn ex-partners and children being regularly reported. This article analyses 49 reported legal cases where the offender has been found guilty of a criminal offence when they used or threatened to use fire to cause harm in the context of domestic and family violence. It considers how fire is used in abusive relationships to exert control, and it examines the co-occurrence of mental health and drug misuse issues in the cases. The article concludes that fire departments are an important part of the domestic and family violence safety system. It also identifies that the use of fire as a tool of abuse in the context of domestic and family violence is under-examined in Australia and makes some suggestions for further research. See here
Making no-case submissions in self-defence claims for primary victims of intimate partner violence charged with criminal offending, Stella Tarrant, 48
Investigators, prosecutors, judges and juries have found self-defence against intimate partner violence (IPV) difficult to perceive on the facts before them because of inaccurate assumptions about the nature of this form of violence. Reforms have focussed on making sure juries have a more accurate understanding of IPV so they can make fairer assessments. These legislative and common law reforms have opened up space for a different kind of legal argument, about the insufficiency of evidence in the state's case against a defendant: no-case submissions. If a state's case is based on a misunderstanding of a defendant's claim about what they were up against when they used force, there is no way of even beginning the legal assessments required by self-defence. No-case arguments are appropriately directed at the structural nature of this problem. This article examines two Australian cases, in which primary victims of IPV were acquitted of charges that they murdered or injured their abusive partner, following submissions that the state had failed to bring evidence capable of proving the defendant had not acted defensively and within reason. These cases show how criminal prosecutions against primary victims of IPV can be challenged. See here
The role of mercy and sentencing for infanticide: the tragic case of R v Guode Natalia Antolak-Saper, 65
The unimaginable circumstances that would drive a woman to kill her child will often justify a more lenient or ‘merciful’ response. However, there is a risk that the use of ‘mercy’ suggests a sentence that is otherwise unjust and has been reduced without reference to sentencing principles. Using the recent high-profile Victorian case of R v Guode, this article examines the notion of mercy in cases of infanticide. It is argued that references to mercy as a sentencing principle should be avoided, and are more appropriately described as mitigating factors justifying a more lenient, but just, punishment. Despite this, sentencing decisions are a form of communication, primarily to the offender, but also to the wider community. In this regard, the use of the word ‘mercy’ may be considered as an important value statement. It is therefore argued that ‘mercy’ should be used, if at all, as a way of communicating the rationale for what might otherwise appear to the public as an unduly lenient sentence for the murder of a child. See here
Conceptions and degrees of innocence: the principles, pragmatics, and policies of the innocence movement, David Hamer, 81
Over the last few decades, the innocence movement in the United States and the United Kingdom has contributed to the correction of many hundreds of mistaken convictions. Complacency about the accuracy of convictions has been displaced by ‘innocence consciousness’. The movement has highlighted underlying problems with the criminal justice process, giving impetus for reform. However, the innocence movement has traditionally had a confined focus, excluding defendants convicted of murder who actually killed accidentally, and sexual assault defendants where the complainant actually did consent. These exclusions appear to be the product of pragmatism rather than principle. They make it easier to achieve exoneration, and tell a story that is simpler and more palatable. However, these restrictions potentially create policy blind spots. The current challenge for the maturing movement is to be conscious of, and seek to overcome, these limitations. See here
Skipping straight to the punishment: criminal infringement notices and factors that influence police discretion, Elyse Methven, 100
The Australian criminal justice system has witnessed a shift towards out-of-court justice in the form of police-issued penalty notices. The exercise of police discretion in such instances has largely escaped critique, in part due to insufficient executive and judicial oversight of this early stage of decision-making. This article sheds light on factors that influence police decision-making regarding whether to issue a penalty notice for suspected criminal offending. It critiques a unique dataset of interviews conducted with Western Australia police officers to inquire into how police structure their discretion around considerations that include: alleged offender characteristics and attitudes, the purposes of punishment and concerns about resourcing, efficiency and productivity. The article advances scholarly understandings of how the legal and policy structure governing police-issued penalty notices encourages police to differentiate between suitable and unsuitable candidates for fines. See here
Act now: raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility, Thomas Crofts, 118
There has been a long-standing debate throughout Australia about the age at which a child should be subjected to criminal proceedings for wrongful behaviour. In February 2019, an Attorneys-General Working Group was formed with the task of reviewing the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) and making recommendations for reform across Australia. So far, no decision has been made about whether and to what age the MACR should be raised. Now individual jurisdictions are pushing for change rather than waiting for a uniform national approach. This article examines the ongoing debate in Australia and considers what reforms should be undertaken in relation to the MACR. It endorses states and territories acting individually to raise the MACR to at least 14 but preferably higher. It also proposes that if the MACR is raised only to 12 or 14 there is a need for doli incapax or some other defence for older children. See here
A case study of state-corporate crime: Crown Resorts, Penny Crofts and Honni van Rijswijk, 139
The concept of state-corporate crime has emerged in criminological discourse to explain the nexus of political and economic decision-making by states and corporations, and the ways this cooperation can have socially injurious impacts (Michalowski, R. J., & Kramer, R. C. [2006]. The critique of power. In R. J. Michalowski & R. C. Kramer (Eds.), State-corporate crime. New Brunswick: Rutgers, p. 15). This ‘cooperation’ can include corporations engaging in illegality with the tacit approval of state organisations, states failing to prevent crime, and even states colluding with corporate illegality. In this article, we use state-corporate crime theory to situate the recent wrongdoing at Crown Resorts (henceforth ‘Crown’). We explain how this wrongdoing emerged within a politico-economic environment of neo-liberalism, particularly through the recent deregulation of casinos in New South Wales (NSW). We argue that the organisational decisions within Crown that breached laws and caused harms are best understood as a case of state-corporate crime. See here
Same but different? Assessing reforms to mental incapacity in criminal law, Arlie Loughnan, 162
In a field typically marked by stasis over long periods of time, in recent years, there have been significant changes in NSW regarding the way in which criminal law deals with mental incapacity. Taken together, these reforms represent a move away from reliance on the common law toward legislation that is posited as modernising and streamlining this part of criminal law. With a focus on Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), this article offers an assessment of the reforms relating to criminal responsibility. I argue that, while some of the reforms are positive, some represent missed opportunities, and some may even have negative consequences. In particular, the enhanced role for victims of crime that underscores several reforms may not achieve the outcomes desired by defendants/patients, victims or others. Overall, the changes encode a fundamental recasting of mental incapacity in criminal law. Stepping away from the specifics of the Act, this article also offers some brief reflections on this recasting. In particular, I suggest that change in this area is hooked on a dilemma, around similarity and difference and the place of the forensic system within criminal justice more broadly. See here
Criminal law reform and the progressives—the case of provocation, Andrew Dyer, 180
In this article, I consider the Australian criminal law reform campaign to abolish the partial defence of provocation. I argue that, while abolitionists were motivated by an admirable concern for equality, their proposal—which has now been adopted in many Australian jurisdictions—inadequately balanced the competing autonomy claims of victims on one hand and the accused on the other. Like the mid-twentieth-century English higher judiciary, abolitionists’ hostility to the partial defence was too unqualified—and they placed too little emphasis on the interests of accused persons. That said, they were right to argue that liberal provocation law, by being too solicitous of the welfare of certain accused, had had deeply illiberal effects. If the criminal law is to be truly progressive, it must do what it can to achieve fairness for disfavoured minorities—including those accused of serious offending. See here
| |
Current Issues in Criminal Justice
Special Issue Expressions of Interest
Current Issues in Criminal Justice (‘CICJ’) is the journal of the Sydney Institute of Criminology at the University of Sydney.
The Editor welcomes suggestions for special issue topics; and/or suggestions or self-nominations of individuals to guest edit a special edition in 2024 and beyond.
EOI deadline is Monday 3 April 2023.
Your EOI must include:
- The proposed title of the special issue;
- The name(s) of and contact information for the guest editor(s);
- A brief description of the scope of the special edition and a statement about its interest to the CICJ readership (2 paragraphs);
- A list of the manuscript titles and abstracts (if available) that would be included in the issue (title, name of author(s) and affiliations); and
- An indication of whether contributing authors have been approached and/or confirmed.
The date of the special issue is subject to negotiation between the editor and the guest editor(s). Please note that guest editor(s) will be responsible for arranging and assessing two double-blind peer review of each submission.
For information about our submission requirements including word limits, see here
Special Issue EOI will be assessed on the basis of likely readiness of all the manuscripts; diversity of contributors (institutions and levels), and contribution to the profile of CICJ.
Please email law.cicj@sydney.edu.au for queries.
| |
Queer criminology: resources on criminal justice issues facing LGBTIQ+ peoples
As Sydney hosts World Pride and the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Festival, Current Issues in Criminal Justice has put together a collection of articles on queer criminology as a resource for practitioners, policymakers and academics. The collection is free to access for February and March 2023.
LGBTIQ+ individuals and communities continue to face a range of challenges from criminal justice institutions. Queer criminology is a growing area of research that seeks to enhance and evaluate efforts to address the inequalities and discrimination faced by LGBTIQ+ people in the criminal justice context. This collection brings together articles on this topic over the last decade as a resource that helps to explain the current socio-legal context in Australian jurisdictions for LGBTIQ+ peoples.
| |
Current Issues in Criminal Justice
Current Issues in Criminal Justice (CICJ) provides detailed analysis of national and international issues by a range of outstanding contributors. It includes contemporary comments, with discussion at the cutting edge of the crime and justice debate, as well as reviews of recently released books.
CICJ accepts submissions on a rolling basis.
You can access current and previous issues of Current Issues in Criminal Justice here.
If you have a book suitable for review by CICJ, please email the books editor, Celine Van Golde
| |
In the High Court of Australia: Mitchell v The King [2023] HCA 5 – A Rejection of ‘Constructive, Constructive Murder’
On 8 March 2023, the High Court of Australia (‘HCA’) published its judgment in the above case. Co-Director of the Sydney Institute of Criminology, Dr Andrew Dyer, has provided the following analysis.
Facts
The four appellants were convicted of murder after a trial before Lovell J and a jury in the Supreme Court of South Australia (‘SA’). At that trial, the Crown had alleged that the appellants – and a fifth man – travelled to the deceased’s house, at which he was growing large quantities of cannabis. Their purpose, the Crown said, was to break into the house and steal a substantial quantity of the deceased’s cannabis. There was evidence that, before effecting this plan, the appellants took the precaution of arming themselves with bricks and a long object – probably a stick or bat. The Crown alleged that, when the break-in occurred, one or more of the offenders violently assaulted the deceased, who died as a result of this violence. The appellants then allegedly took a large amount of cannabis from the house.
Because the Crown could not prove which of the appellants had actually killed the deceased, it was forced to use the law of criminal complicity to reason towards their guilt. More specifically, it claimed that each appellant was guilty of murder on the basis of the doctrine of extended joint criminal enterprise (‘EJCE’). The Crown put its EJCE case in two ways.
First, it combined EJCE with ‘common law murder’. On this view of the case, the trial judge told the jury, an individual appellant would be guilty of murder if the Crown had proved that: (i) he agreed with the others to commit a crime (the break-in offence); (ii) one or more of the party committed a further crime (murder) in the course of the agreed upon criminal enterprise; and (iii) he had foreseen that, when carrying out the break-in, one of his co-venturers might perform conduct with the mens rea for ‘common law murder’ (relevantly, an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm).
Secondly, and in the alternative, it combined EJCE with the constructive murder rule. That rule has been placed on a statutory footing by s 12A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘the CLC Act’), which provides that: ‘A person who commits an intentional act of violence while acting in the course or furtherance of a major indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for ten years or more (other than abortion), and thus causes the death of another, is guilty of murder.’ The trial judge told the jury that, on this view of the case, an individual appellant would be guilty of murder if the Crown had proved that: (i) he agreed with the others to commit the ‘major indictable offence’ of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence with the intent to commit theft (created by s 170 of the CLC Act and punishable by life imprisonment); (ii) at least one of the participants, in the course or furtherance of the agreed upon offence, caused the deceased’s death by an intentional act of violence (i.e. ‘committed constructive murder’); and (iii) he had foreseen that, when carrying out the trespass offence, one of his co-venturers might perform an intentional act of violence. The judge told the jury that the foreseen ‘intentional act of violence … could be any intentional act of violence at all’. It would be enough, he said, if the appellant whose case it was considering had, for instance, foreseen that one of his co-venturers ‘might strike [the deceased] … on the back of the leg’: at [88].
Unsurprisingly, the appellants were each convicted of murder. After an unsuccessful appeal to the SA Court of Appeal (‘SACA’), the HCA granted them leave to raise ‘a substantial new ground’ of appeal. According to that ground, the trial judge had erred by allowing EJCE to be combined with the ‘constructive murder doctrine in s 12A of the CLC Act’: at [51]. The ‘principles of extended joint criminal enterprise’, it was said, ‘could not be combined with those of the constructive murder rule to create a new pathway to proof of murder’: at [92].
The HCA’s decision
The HCA unanimously upheld this submission. It also held that, because the jury might have convicted the appellants of murder on the EJCE and constructive murder rule view of the case, the appellants’ convictions had to be quashed and a new trial ordered.
All seven justices accepted that a person may be convicted of murder on the basis of a combination of the constructive murder rule in s 12A and the basic joint criminal enterprise doctrine (‘JCE’). Such a conviction will properly occur where the Crown can prove that: (I) the accused agreed with another or others to commit one of the ‘major indictable offences’ of which s 12A speaks; (ii) in the course or furtherance of that offence, one of the accused’s co-venturers caused the death of another by an intentional act of violence; and (iii) that act was within the scope of the parties’ agreement: i.e. the parties agreed that an act of the ‘same general nature’ be performed if the occasion arose during the foundational venture: at [108] per Gordon, Edelamn and Steward JJ; [48] per Gageler, Gleeson and Jagot JJ – and see [19] per Kiefel CJ.
But their Honours did not accept that the constructive murder rule and extended joint criminal enterprise can be combined. Justices Gordon, Edelman and Steward expressed concern about so ‘expansive’ a pathway to murder liability: [100]-[101]; and see too [30] (Kiefel CJ) and [46] (Gageler, Gleeson and Jagot JJ). Under it, a person could be convicted of murder simply on the basis of having foreseen the possibility of ‘almost any act or threat of violence’ (at [29]) in the course or furtherance of a ‘major indictable offence’ that she had agreed to commit. When Parliament inserted s 12A into the CLC Act in 1995, Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ continued, it did not intend to create such ‘constructive, constructive murder’ liability: at [52], [96]-[101]. Its intention was to restrict the operation of constructive murder – s 12A altered the common law constructive murder rule to the benefit of the accused – not to expand it: [99]. Justices Gordon, Edelman and Steward held that the text of s 12A fortifies this conclusion. Whereas s 12A imposes liability on ‘A person who commits an intentional act of violence …’, a person accused of murder on the basis of EJCE has not actually committed such an act: [98]. Moreover, like Gageler, Gleeson and Jagot JJ (see [45]), Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ observed that Parliament cannot be presumed to have intended that EJCE apply to s 12A. EJCE, they held, was only recognised in Australia in McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108, which was decided 6 months after s 12A came into force: [97].
Justices Gordon, Edelman and Steward issued two further statements of principle.
First, they found that, while EJCE can clearly be combined with ‘common law murder’ (see, eg, Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380), the trial judge had misdirected the jury about the circumstances in which a person would be liable for ‘common law murder’ on the basis of EJCE. Contrary to what he said, it is not enough for a person to agree with another to commit a lesser crime than murder with foresight that, in the course of the agreed upon enterprise, that person might do an act with the mens rea for murder: at [107]. Rather, the Crown must prove that the EJCE accused foresaw ‘all elements’ of the crime of murder: at [56] (emphasis added). In other words, it must be proved that she foresaw that her co-venturer might do an act with the requisite intent and cause death or really serious bodily injury: at [58]-[59]. But no other member of the Court in Mitchell accepted this reasoning.
Secondly, Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ held that, whereas basic JCE liability is primary liability – all acts of the perpetrator to which the passive participants agree are attributed to them (at [55]) – EJCE liability is derivative. It arises, that is, only once it is proved that the perpetrator of the foreseen crime is liable for that crime: at [61]. The perpetrator’s acts are not attributed to the passive participants, because they did not agree to those acts: at [61]. No other member of the Court explicitly accepted this reasoning – although Gageler, Gleeson and Jagot JJ did repeatedly refer to the EJCE accused as a ‘secondary party’: at [32]; [34]; cf IL v The Queen (2017) 262 CLR 268, 312-3 [107], where Gageler J treated as unresolved the question of whether EJCE liability is primary or derivative.
Discussion
In Mitchell, the HCA has sought to rein in a monster of its own creation.
As Kiefel CJ acknowledged in her judgment (at [18]), many commentators have criticised the EJCE doctrine. See, eg, Odgers (1996) 20 Crim LJ 43; McNamara (2014) 38 Crim LJ 104; Dyer (2018) 40 Sydney LR 291. As her Honour also noted, the doctrine has recently been excised from UK law. See R v Jogee [2017] AC 387. Essentially, the attacks on EJCE have centred on its unfairness. Is it really just, people ask, to convict of murder a person who has foreseen merely that a co-offender might commit that offence during the agreed upon criminal venture? No doubt, this person has acted culpably. But has he acted culpably enough to warrant being labelled a murderer? Yet, since McAuliffe was decided in 1995, the HCA has twice refused to overrule it. See Clayton v R (2006) 231 ALR 500; Miller (2016) 259 CLR 380.
The logic of EJCE would seem to lead exactly where the trial judge in Mitchell thought it did. According to that doctrine, a party to a JCE who foresees that a co-venturer might commit a further crime, and who continues to participate in the venture with that foresight, is guilty of that further crime when the co-venturer commits it. Surely, then, if A agrees with B to commit some lesser crime than murder, with foresight that B might, in the course of the venture, commit murder, A is guilty of that crime when B commits it – whether the murder liability that A has foreseen, and B has attracted, arises because of the common law or s 12A? It is easy to see why the HCA in Mitchell was concerned about the consequences that such an approach might produce. To return to the allegations in that case: if A agrees to break into, and steal cannabis from, a residence, foreseeing merely that, once inside, a co-offender might strike the owner of that residence on the back of the leg (or commit some other relatively minor ‘act of violence’), it would seem highly unjust to convict A of murder if the co-offender does commit an intentional act of violence causing death during the course of the agreed upon enterprise. But, again, that is what EJCE seems to mandate.
The HCA’s reasons for denying that A is guilty of murder in a scenario like this are unpersuasive. It is true that the text of s 12A contemplates only the actual perpetrator of an ‘act of violence’. But, insofar as intentional and reckless indifference murder are concerned, s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) only speaks of principals; and it is well-established that a person can be convicted of such offending on the basis of the common law complicity principles. See, eg, R v Surridge (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 278, 282-3. It is also true that the SA Parliament in 1995 narrowed the operation of the constructive murder rule. But that Parliament must have known that the common law of complicity, as it may be from time to time, applies to all criminal offences. It is accordingly hard to accept that it intended to apply only part of that law to s 12A prosecutions. Contrary to the claims of six Justices in Mitchell, EJCE was recognised in Australia before 1995 (albeit not yet by the HCA – though such recognition was eminently foreseeable). See R v Sharah (1992) 30 NSWLR 292, 303; R v McAuliffe (1993) 70 A Crim R 303, 309; cf R v Britten (1988) 49 SASR 47, 52-4, 59-60. It had also been recognised by the Privy Council and in England. See Chan Wing-Siu v The Queen [1985] 1 AC 168, 175; R v Hyde [1991] 1 QB 134, 139. In such circumstances, it seems that, if Parliament had wished to take the very unusual course of disapplying (this) part of the law of complicity to part of one of its offences, it would have said so.
In short, in Mitchell, the HCA seems to have deployed dubious reasoning to avoid results that follow inexorably from its acceptance of the harsh EJCE doctrine in McAuliffe and subsequent cases. To allow for the constructive murder rule and EJCE to be combined, Gageler, Gleeson and Jagot JJ said, ‘would introduce an anomalous distinction between participants in the foundational major indictable offence: the intentional commission of an act of violence being required to render a participant who does the act of violence causing death liable for murder, and mere foresight of the intentional commission of an act of violence causing death being sufficient to render a participant who does not do the act liable for the same offence’: at [44] (emphasis added). Parliament, their Honours thought, could not have intended this. Yet one of the main criticisms of McAuliffe is that it draws a very similar ‘anomalous distinction’. While, in a standard murder scenario, the Crown must prove that the actual perpetrator had an intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, it need only prove that the EJCE participant foresaw the possibility of murder. If the HCA is willing to countenance such an anomaly, why is it at all improbable that the SA Parliament was willing to do the same?
What of the other statements of principle that were issued by Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ? The first seems wrong. While there is academic support for the view that a person should only be convicted of murder on the basis of EJCE if she has foreseen all of the elements of that offence – see Richards and McNamara (2018) 42 Crim LJ 342 – the person who foresees the possibility of his or her co-venturer doing an act that causes grievous bodily harm, with the intent for murder (see [58]-[59] of Mitchell), has not foreseen all of the elements. This person has foreseen that the perpetrator might perform the elements of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm. The second statement of principle – that EJCE is derivative, not primary – is contestable. Take the case where an accused agrees to rob a bank with a person she knows is mentally ill, and who continues to participate in the venture despite her foresight that this person might shoot the teller with the mens rea for murder. If the person who is mentally ill does shoot and kill the teller with murderous intent, but is convicted only of manslaughter because of the partial defence of substantial impairment because of mental health impairment or cognitive impairment, should the EJCE participant be immune from murder liability? On the view of culpability taken by the law – albeit, as I have argued, wrongly – she is culpable enough to be convicted of that offence. Should her liability be reduced simply because her co-offender can benefit from the partial defence? That said, as I have argued elsewhere (see Dyer (2019) 42 UNSW LJ 500, 529-530), there does seem to be a way out of this bind. If EJCE – and JCE – liability were derivative, but required merely the performance of the full actus reus by the principal, passive (E)JCE participants could be convicted of offences reflecting their own level of culpability. See, eg, R v Millward [1994] Crim LR 527; and note, too, the reasoning of Bell and Nettle JJ in IL (2017) 262 CLR 268.
One further point can be made. Cases like Mitchell arguably provide support for the view that, when Kiefel CJ retires from the HCA at the end of the year, a criminal lawyer should replace her. The Court decides a high number of criminal matters every year, and certain areas of the criminal law are complex and require a high level of expertise. Whatever criticisms can be made of the English law of criminal complicity, the judgment in Jogee [2017] AC 387, written by two undoubted experts in the criminal law, has left that law in a far more principled state than the Australian law in this area.
| |
Personal Safety, Australia: Rates of physical and sexual assault, family and domestic violence, economic and emotional abuse, stalking, sexual harassment, and childhood abuse.
Australian Bureau of Statistics Released: 15 March 2023
An estimated 8 million Australians (41%) have experienced violence (physical and/or sexual) since the age of 15, including:
- 31% of women and 42% of men who have experienced physical violence
- 22% of women and 6.1% of men who have experienced sexual violence
| |
Illicit drug court cases drop in 2021-22
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Released: 03 March 2023
A 22 per cent decrease in defendants with illicit drug offences was behind a decline in Australian criminal courts finalisations in 2021–22, according to data released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
William Milne, ABS head of crime and justice statistics, said: “There were 43,667 defendants with illicit drugs as their main offence, accounting for almost one in ten defendants finalised in criminal courts across the country. That’s down from 55,973 defendants with this offence in the previous year.”
| |
Queensland boy, 13, spends at least 45 days in solitary confinement despite not being sentenced to detention
Ben Smee, The Guardian, 15 March 2023
A 13-year-old First Nations boy remanded for minor criminal offences was kept in total solitary confinement in a Queensland youth detention centre for at least 45 days, Guardian Australia has learned.
| |
One-third of childhood sexual abuse is perpetrated by another child. Shannon Molloy tells his story – and urges us not to look away
Daryl Higgins, The Conversation, 12 March 2023
Journalist Shannon Molloy is used to sharing his story. In his 2020 memoir, Fourteen (now adapted for the stage), he wrote about growing up gay in regional Queensland in the 1990s, enduring severe bullying.
| |
Biggest racial gap in prison is among violent offenders – focusing on intervention instead of incarceration could change the numbers
Thaddeus L. Johnson and Natasha N. Johnson, The Conversation, 11 March 2023
Racial disparities in state imprisonment rates dropped significantly during the first two decades of the 21st century.
| |
A fifth of teenagers watch pornography frequently and some are addicted, UK study finds
Harriet Grant and Dan Milmo, The Guardian, 11 March 2023
A major new survey of British schoolchildren’s attitudes to pornography has found significant numbers of young people aged between 14 and 18 are watching it frequently, with some becoming addicted to sexually explicit content.
| |
Former Fiji prime minister Frank Bainimarama pleads not guilty to abuse of office
The Guardian, 10 March 2023
Former Fijian leader Frank Bainimarama has been released on bail and said he “served with integrity,” after pleading not guilty to abusing his power as prime minister by stopping a police investigation.
| |
Trump told of possible criminal charges for paying off Stormy Daniels – report
David Smith, The Guardian, 10 March 2023
Prosecutors have signaled to Donald Trump that he could face criminal charges for making a hush money payment to the adult film actor and director Stormy Daniels, it was reported on Thursday.
| |
Tyre Nichols' death sparks US Justice Department review into Memphis police department
ABC, 9 March 2023
The US Justice Department will review the Memphis police department in response to the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols during an arrest in January.
| |
Health care offered to women in prison should match community standards – and their rights
Andreea Lachsz, The Conversation, 8 March 2023
On this International Women’s Day, let’s not forget women in prison. There are 3,088 women imprisoned in Australia on any given day, representing 7.5% of the prison population. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are over-represented in these numbers.
| |
|
Publications
All open access unless indicated.
| |
Defund the Police, An International Insurrection
Chris Cunneen, Policy Press, ISBN 978-1447361671
Abstract: The police are viewed as guardians of public safety and enforcers of the law. How accurate is this? Given endemic police violence which is often aimed at racialised and minoritised groups and the failure of many attempts at reform, attention has turned to community-generated models of support. These include defunding the police and instead funding alternatives to criminalisation and incarceration.
This book is the first comprehensive overview of police divestment, using international examples and case studies to reimagine community safety beyond policing and imprisonment.
Showcasing a range of practical examples, this topical book will be relevant for academics, policy makers, activists and all those interested in the Black Lives Matter movement, protest movements and the renewed interest in policing and abolitionism more generally.
| |
Reporting of dating app facilitated sexual violence to the police: Victim-survivor experiences and outcomes
Siobhan Lawler and Hayley Boxall, Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice 662, Australian Institute of Criminology
Abstract: This study examines experiences of victim-survivors who reported in-person and online sexual harassment and violence perpetrated by someone they met on an online dating platform to the police.
The findings show that respondents were more likely to report in-person than online sexual violence to police (14.7% vs 8.3%). Despite experiencing disproportionate rates of sexual violence, LGB+ women had the lowest rates of reporting and more negative experiences when reporting.
Overall, police are responding appropriately to reports of sexual violence. However, some groups are more likely to have negative experiences, which impacts on their intentions to report to police in future.
| |
Enablers of illicit drug trafficking by organised crime groups.
Anthony Morgan & Christopher Dowling, Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 665, Australian Institute of Criminology
Abstract: In this study we explore the enablers of illicit drug trafficking using law enforcement intelligence data on a sample of 587 organised crime groups. We measure the prevalence of other forms of criminal activity and their relationship with poly-drug trafficking, which refers to the trafficking of multiple drug types and is associated with increased profitability, versatility and resilience to disruption.
Other forms of criminal activity— including enablers of illicit drug trafficking—were common. Half the groups (52%) were poly-drug traffickers. Groups suspected to have exploited or infiltrated the transport system (air, sea or surface) and those suspected of laundering money via the real estate market or gambling services were more likely to be trafficking multiple drug types. Groups that relied on these enabling activities were more likely to involve professional facilitators.
This research highlights a number of key enablers of organised crime that may be targeted to disrupt illicit drug trafficking.
| |
Predictive policing in an Australian context: Assessing viability and utility
Dan Birks, et al, Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 666, Australian Institute of Criminology
Abstract: Studies in the United States and Europe have demonstrated that burglary and vehicle crime exhibit consistent patterns, supporting the application of crime prediction techniques to proactively deploy police resources to reduce incidents of crime. Research into whether these techniques are applicable in an Australian context is currently limited.
Using crime data from the Queensland Police Service, this study assessed the presence of spatio-temporal patterns in burglary, theft of motor vehicle and theft from motor vehicle offences in three distinct local government areas. After establishing the presence of spatiotemporal clustering, the forecasting performance of two predictive algorithms and a retrospective crime mapping technique was evaluated.
Forecasting performance varied across study regions; however, the prediction algorithms performed as well as or better than the retrospective method, while using less data. The next step in evaluating predictive policing within Australia is to consider and design effective tactical responses to prevent crime based on the forecast locations and identified patterns.
| |
Improving Fairness in Criminal Justice Algorithmic Risk Assessments Using Optimal Transport and Conformal Prediction Sets
Richard A. Berk, et al, Sociological Methods & Research
Abstract: In the United States and elsewhere, risk assessment algorithms are being used to help inform criminal justice decision-makers. A common intent is to forecast an offender’s “future dangerousness.” Such algorithms have been correctly criticized for potential unfairness, and there is an active cottage industry trying to make repairs. In this paper, we use counterfactual reasoning to consider the prospects for improved fairness when members of a disadvantaged class are treated by a risk algorithm as if they are members of an advantaged class. We combine a machine learning classifier trained in a novel manner with an optimal transport adjustment for the relevant joint probability distributions, which together provide a constructive response to claims of bias-in-bias-out. A key distinction is made between fairness claims that are empirically testable and fairness claims that are not. We then use confusion tables and conformal prediction sets to evaluate achieved fairness for estimated risk. Our data are a random sample of 300,000 offenders at their arraignments for a large metropolitan area in the United States during which decisions to release or detain are made. We show that substantial improvement in fairness can be achieved consistently with a Pareto improvement for legally protected classes.
| |
Prevalence and patterns of domestic abuse victimisation in an English police workforce
Iain Brennan, et al, Policing and Society
Abstract: Perhaps more than any other occupation, police witness the context and aftermath of domestic abuse but little is known about the police-victim overlap with regard to domestic abuse. This paper, based on survey responses from approximately one-quarter of the workforce in an English police force (weighted n = 876) addresses this gap. In the survey, respondents described personal characteristics, colleague and personal experience of domestic abuse victimisation. Weighting the data to address non-response patterns, we found lifetime prevalence of domestic abuse in the police workforce around 22%. Females were more likely than males to experience domestic abuse (relative risk (RR) 1.61, confidence interval (CI) 1.25–2.08). Of victims, 47% disclosed their victimisation to a colleague, while 37% disclosed to a line manager and 27% were abused by a partner who also worked in policing. Although there was no difference in disclosure between males and females, disclosure to a colleague (RR 1.66, CI 1.24–2.13) or a line manager (RR 1.79, CI 1.24–2.58) was more likely if the abuser worked in policing. This paper – the most comprehensive description of domestic abuse victimisation in a policing population – demonstrates that, despite their occupational role as guardians and enforcers of the law, the police workforce experience domestic abuse in similar ways as do the general population. As with the general population, this frequency of victimisation, coupled with the repetitive and continuous nature of domestic abuse and the harm it causes, represents a widespread problem and threat to the wellbeing of the police workforce.
| |
Critical ethical reflexivity (CER) in feminist narrative inquiry: reflections from cis researchers doing social work research with trans and non-binary people
Michaela Rogers & Claire Brown, International Journal of Social Research Methodology
Abstract: This paper explores issues of reflexivity and knowledge production when cisgender researchers conduct social work research, using feminist narrative methods, to advance understanding about trans and non-binary people’s identities and experiences. Cisgender (or ‘cis’) refers to people who identify with the gender identity assigned to them at birth. The paper examines cis identity, privilege and positionality arguing for a reflexive engagement of the ways in which these influence ethical decision-making and research praxis. In this way, we speak to existing critiques that suggest that only trans and non-binary people should research their own experiences and identities. To address the neglect of gender diversity in education for social work practice and research, we propose that doing social work research with trans and non-binary communities requires cis researchers to adopt critical ethical reflexivity (CER) to scrutinise the impact of gender normativity and its effects in knowledge production for social work.
| |
Who’s afraid of the vulnerable terrorist? Framing violent jihadists’ life and intimate relationships
Aube Tollu, Critical Studies on Terrorism
Abstract: This article looks at a sample of academic articles in the field of terrorism studies and international relations to explore the ways in which marriage, sexual activity and close relationships in jihadist groups are framed, imagined and investigated. Despite the scarcity of research being conducted on the subject, this article reveals that, in the study of terrorism, the issue of intimate relationships is the object of two trends: on the one hand, the themes of sexuality and marriage are in fact present in the field, only exclusively through the lens of sexual victimisation, violence, abuse and romantic manipulation. On the other hand, intimate relationships are often dismissed as not being worthy of in-depth investigation when not related to violence. Together, these two interdependent trends create, using the words of Butler, a “silent and melancholic discourse”, which downplays the subjectivity, banality, and vulnerability of the life experiences of subjects involved in jihadist groups. Using the learnings of queer scholarship, the article posits that the ways in which the intimate life of individuals involved in jihadist movements are portrayed and ascribed a perverted characteristic matter in how vulnerability is distributed and how the subjects are apprehended in academia and beyond.
| |
“I don’t really see any kind of change” – multi-perspective analysis of a circle of support and accountability for young people who have previously demonstrated harmful sexual behaviour
Nicholas Blagden, et al, Journal of Sexual Aggression
Abstract: It is estimated that young people commit between 20% and 60% of sexual offences against children. While social isolation is a recognised risk factor for harmful sexual behaviour in young people, strong childhood attachments, developing social skills and belonging to peer groups are key protective factors. Community Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA) is a community-based intervention that was originally developed for adults with sexual convictions and has now been adopted with young people who display harmful sexual behaviour. CoSA directly addresses issues of social isolation by providing individuals (known as Core Members) with a circle of social support made up of volunteers, professionals and a coordinator. There is now an established evidence base for CoSA with adults; the current study aims to explore the experience of a young person’s CoSA. Interviews were conducted with a Core Member, their guardian (grandmother), CoSA volunteer and the CoSA Coordinator. Multi-perspective interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to analyse the data, and three superordinate themes were established: (i) Contested self-change, (ii) Negotiating relational boundaries and (iii) Toward “normalcy”.
| |
How to solve the problems of problem-solving courts
Research Network Victoria Law Foundation
Date: 21 March 2023
Time: 9:30am - 10am
Venue: Online
Problem-solving courts, also referred to as specialist courts, have been adopted around the world to better address underlying causes of offending. Although they can vary considerably in how they seek to achieve this, they share a guiding philosophy: by targeting those factors that contributed to the offence, the individual is less likely to reoffend.
| |
Wrongful Conviction & the Structural Analysis of Innocence Cases
Date: 27 March 2023
Time: 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm AEDT
Venue: University of Newcastle, Ground Floor, Room X-G18, NU Space
This seminar will provide a comparative analysis of wrongful convictions and the structural analysis of innocence cases, providing Japanese case examples. The seminar would be of interest to law, criminology and psychology students, legal practitioners, and anyone interested in criminal procedures. The seminar will run for approximately 40 minutes. There will be an opportunity for a Q&A at the end of the session.
| |
7th Annual Future Justice and Corrections Summit
Date: March 28 - 30 2023
7th Annual Future Justice and Corrections Summit will bring together key stakeholders across government departments, private and public operators, architects and health practitioners to come together and discuss the future of Corrections in Australia and NZ.
| |
Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice Reform
Date: 30 March 2023
Time: 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM EDT
Venue: Online
CLEAR’s Criminal Justice Task Force Series produced in conjunction with the Hinckley Allen Racial Justice Fellows presents Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice Reform. Join Professor Deborah Ramirez, Chair of the Criminal Justice Task Force and Faculty Co-Director of the Center for Law, Equity and Race (CLEAR) for a virtual discussion. Guest speakers Susan Maze-Rothstein, Executive Director of the Center for Restorative Justice, and Dennis Everett, Director of Restorative Justice Practices at Suffolk University, will discuss how the restorative justice paradigm as it compares to the traditional western legal system.
| |
2023 National Access to Justice and Pro Bono Conference
21 – 23 June 2023 | Brisbane
For the first time since March 2019, members of the legal assistance sector from around the country will come together to explore the various challenges and opportunities associated with enhancing access to legal services and pro bono work.
| |
Applied Research in Crime and Justice Conference
Date: 14-15 August 2023
Venue: International Convention Centre, Sydney
The conference aims to showcase practical, policy-relevant research with a direct bearing on effective criminal justice administration and reducing crime. The two-day event will feature presentations and panel discussions with distinguished academics and speakers from across the world including keynote addresses by Professor Aaron Chaflin, University of Pennsylvania, and Professor Jason Payne, University of Wollongong.
Abstract submissions are now invited from researchers who have completed, or are conducting empirical, policy-relevant projects on crime and/or criminal justice issues. Areas of interest include (but are not limited to): crime, policing, offender rehabilitation, victimisation, Aboriginal over-representation, corrections, juvenile justice, domestic violence, early intervention, and criminal justice administration. Interdisciplinary applications are welcomed.
| |
PhD Scholarship: Societal Costs of Violent Offenders in the Night-time Economy
Griffith University
Applications close: 17 March 2023
We are currently looking for a PhD candidate to conduct research on violent offenders in the night-time economy. This program of research will extend from a larger project funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award which will focus on better understanding the offending patterns of people that are violent in and around licensed venues, and the effectiveness of person-focused responses.
| |
Call for submissions on the strategic vision for the fulfilment of the mandate of Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
UNCHR
Submissions close: 17 March 2023
The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, will report to the Human Rights Council for the first time at its 53rd session, in June 2023, pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 43/36. Her first thematic report will outline the strategic vision for the fulfillment of her mandate.
| |
Senior Research Officer (NCAS)
ANROWS
Applications Close: 22 March 2023
ANROWS is seeking a Senior Research Officer (NCAS), with expertise in quantitative social science research to assist the Director, Research Program (NCAS) with the NCAS Research Program.
| |
Call for Submissions: Law Reform Commission of Western Australia
The LRC is examining issues relating to WA’s sexual offence laws, including the definition of consent, the defence of mistaken belief in consent, the directions given to juries in sexual offence trials, our substantive offences and their maximum penalties. The LRC will provide advice and recommend any necessary reforms to the Attorney General.
The LRC seeks submissions from individuals and organisations on the options and questions posed in the Discussion Paper. Submissions on issues raised in volume 1 of the Discussion Paper close on 17 March 2023. Submission on issues raised in volume 2 of the Discussion Paper close on 6 April 2023. For information about how to make a submission please visit www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au
The LRC is also holding consultations with reference groups and organisations and persons who wish to contribute to law reform in this area. To register your interest in attending a consultation please email lrcwa@justice.wa.gov.au
| |
Apply to become a witness intermediary
NSW Government
Applications Close: 19 March 2023
Victims Services is accepting applications to join the panel of witness intermediaries to assist child victims and witnesses of sexual offences through the Child Sexual Offence Evidence Program.
| |
Postdoctoral Research Fellow - Forensic Behavioural Science
Swinburne University of Technology
Applications Close: 21 March 2023
Swinburne University of Technology’s Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science (CFBS) department is looking for a postdoctoral research fellow to join their team to work with Distinguished Professor James Ogloff AM. The CFBS is Australasia’s leading centre for excellence in the areas of forensic mental health and forensic behavioural science research, teaching and practice development.
| |
Research Fellow, Grade 1
Griffith University
Applications Close: 29 March 2023
We are looking for a motivated and highly skilled Research Fellow to work with a team of scholars interested in “Understanding the emerging threat of conspiracy-fuelled extremism in Australia”. The successful applicant will work closely with the project team to investigate the drivers of conspiracy-fuelled extremist beliefs and behaviours. Centrally, we seek to understand conspiracy-fuelled extremism through a theoretical framework that considers “injustice grievances” brought on by the COVID pandemic, alongside the “de-legitimisation” of governments, authorities and policies that occurred during the pandemic.
| |
Abstract Submissions: Applied Research in Crime and Justice Conference
BOSCAR
Submissions Close: 31 March 2023
Abstract submissions are now invited from researchers who have completed, or are conducting empirical, policy-relevant projects on crime and/or criminal justice issues. Areas of interest include (but are not limited to): crime, policing, offender rehabilitation, victimisation, Aboriginal over-representation, corrections, juvenile justice, domestic violence, early intervention, and criminal justice administration. Interdisciplinary applications are welcomed.
Abstracts should be no more than 200 words in length and should be structured in a way that reveals the aim, method, results, and conclusion of the paper. Please include your name, institutional affiliation, contact email and/or phone number: bocsar_seminars@justice.nsw.gov.au.
| |
Call for input on The use of technology in facilitating and preventing contemporary forms of slavery
UNCHR
Submissions close: 14 April 2023
The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery, including its causes and consequences, wishes to focus his next thematic report to the General Assembly on “the use of technology in facilitating and preventing contemporary forms of slavery”. For the purpose of the report, he aims to also assess the experiences of survivors/victims who have been recruited and exploited in conducts within his mandate, particularly forced labour, the worst form of child labour, and forced and early marriage, with the use of modern technology in addition to analysing information from multiple other stakeholders and sources.
| |
Nominations for the 2023 ACVPA now open.
Submissions close: Tuesday 20 April 2023, 5 pm AEST
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.
| |
BLOGS, INTERVIEWS & PODCASTS
| |
The lure of dark destinations
Transforming Society
Adam Lynes Craig Kelly and James Treadwell
From the Alcatraz East Crime Museum and Jack the Ripper guided tours to the Phnom Penh killing fields, ‘dark tourism’ is now a multi-million-pound global industry. What is the attraction and where is the line between acceptable and problematic dark tourism drawn?
In this episode, Becky Taylor speaks with Adam Lynes, Craig Kelly and James Treadwell, editors of 50 Dark Destinations, about what dark tourism is, why we’re drawn to such macabre forms of tourism and the unique aspects the internet has brought to the industry
| |
A New Video Series Explores Criminal Justice From the Inside Out
New York Times
Kalia Richardson
Donald Washington Jr. had only an eighth-grade education when he began his 15-year-to-life sentence in a New York correctional facility for murder, robbery and the criminal sale of a controlled substance. By the time he was released nearly 15 years later, he had earned a bachelor’s degree in behavioral science and a master’s degree in professional studies through a prison college program.
He knows self-improvement is possible for those in prison. But he also knows that obstacles exist.
“Prison is not an environment that’s necessarily conducive to your growth and development,” Washington, 38, said. “But it can be if you seek that, right? So this is the seeds of hope that we are hoping to plant.”
| |
"Everyone knows that children do their best when they are supported, nurtured and loved. But right now across Australia, children as young as 10 can be arrested by police, charged with an offence, hauled before a court and locked away in a prison.
We know these laws are harming children at a critical time in their lives. When children are forced through a criminal legal process, at such a formative time in their development, they can suffer lifelong harm to their health, wellbeing and future"
| |
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.
| |
|
|
|
|
|