DOCSLIB.ORG

Forfeiture Rule Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Forfeiture Rule Report Report 14 February 2020 South Australian Law Reform Institute RIDDLES, MYSTERIES AND ENIGMAS: THE COMMON LAW FORFEITURE RULE The South Australian Law Reform Institute was established in December 2010 by agreement between the Attorney-General of South Australia, the University of Adelaide and the Law Society of South Australia. It is based at the Adelaide University Law School. Postal address: SA Law Reform Institute Adelaide Law School University of Adelaide North Terrace Australia 5005 Telephone: (08) 8313 5582 Email: [email protected] Website: http://law.adelaide.edu.au/research/south -australian-law-reform-institute Publications: SALRI publications, including this Report, are available to download free of charge from the SALRI webpage under Publications: Reports and Papers. Suggested citation: Sylvia Villios, David Plater, Olivia Jay, Terry Evans and Emily Ireland, Riddles, Mysteries and Enigmas: The Common Law Forfeiture Rule (South Australian Law Reform Institute, Adelaide, 2020) Terms of reference In September 2011, the then South Australian Attorney-General, the Hon John Rau MP, asked the South Australian Law Reform Institute (SALRI) to review the role and application of the common law forfeiture rule and any need for legislative intervention in South Australia. The Attorney-General drew the attention of SALRI to a suggestion that there was for a need for a new law to permit the common law forfeiture rule to be mitigated. The present Attorney-General, the Hon Vickie Chapman MP, supported SALRI undertaking this reference. SALRI has not been able until now to undertake this reference owing to other commitments and the need to first complete its major references into various aspects of succession law, as well as provocation and other defences to murder and related issues (notably the domestic violence implications of the present law in this area). These references provide the necessary background and context to this review of the common law forfeiture rule. Participants South Australian Law Reform Institute Director Professor John Williams Deputy Director Dr David Plater Advisory Board Professor John Williams (Chair) The Hon David Bleby QC Professor Melissa de Zwart Mr Terry Evans Mr Stephen McDonald Mr Dini Soulio The Hon Justice Tim Stanley Ms Aimee Travers Administrative Officer Louise Scarman Project Officers / Researchers Olivia Jay Anita Brunacci Acknowledgements This Report was written by Dr Sylvia Villios, Dr David Plater, Olivia Jay, Terry Evans and Emily Ireland with valuable input from Professor John Williams, the Hon David Bleby QC and the students of the 2012, 2016, 2017 and 2018 Law Reform courses at the University of Adelaide. SALRI acknowledges, in particular, the contributions of the following students: Joshua Aikens, Alex Falcinella, Isabelle Gatley, Stamatina Halikias, Charles Hamra, Sophie Howe, Nicholas Munday and Rebecca Scarabotti. Louise Scarman, Holly Nicholls, Joshua Aikens and Professor John Williams provided proofreading and editorial assistance. SALRI particularly acknowledges the valuable contribution to this Report of the late Helen Wighton, the founding Deputy Director of SALRI. SALRI also acknowledges the contributions of Professor Gino Dal Pont of the University of Tasmania, Dr Xianlu Zeng of the University of South Australia, Emily Sims and Anita Brunacci. SALRI also acknowledges the input of its Advisory Board to this reference. On several issues there was no simple solution and the Board’s input proved especially valuable. SALRI is grateful for the many insightful submissions received in relation to this reference. Disclaimer This Report deals with the law as of 29 February 2020 and may not necessarily represent the current law. Any views expressed in this Report are those of the South Australian Law Reform Institute and no other agency. Contents Abbreviations and Glossary…………………………………………………………..………………i Preface……………………………………………………………………………….……………........v Summary of Recommendations……………………………………………………………..……...xiii Part 1 - Background…………………………………………………………………………………...1 The South Australian Law Reform Institute ................................................................................. 1 The Common Law Forfeiture Rule reference ............................................................................... 2 Consultation Approach ................................................................................................................. 6 Scope and Operation of the Common Law Forfeiture Rule ......................................................... 8 Broad Policy Considerations ...................................................................................................... 16 Part 2 – History of the Common Law Forfeiture Rule………..…………………………………...17 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 17 Origins of Forfeiture for Treason and Felony ............................................................................. 18 Origins of Public Policy that a Criminal Should Not Benefit from His Crime .......................... 26 SALRI's Observations and Conclusions ..................................................................................... 37 Part 3 - Reform of the Common Law Forfeiture Rule……………………………..…...…………40 The Adoption of the Common Law Forfeiture Rule in Australia ............................................... 40 The Discretionary Approach ....................................................................................................... 40 The Reinstatement of the Absolute Approach ............................................................................ 42 Current South Australian Position .............................................................................................. 44 Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 46 Consultation Data Overview: Is there a Need for Reform? ........................................................ 61 SALRI’s Observations and Conclusions .................................................................................... 64 Part 4 - Models for Legislative Reform……………………..……………………….………….…..66 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 66 The Discretionary Model ............................................................................................................ 67 The Codification Model .............................................................................................................. 76 The Hybrid Model ...................................................................................................................... 79 Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 79 Consultation Data Overview: Which Model Should we Adopt in SA? ...................................... 83 SALRI’s Observations and Conclusions .................................................................................... 88 Part 5 – Scope of the Forfeiture Rule……………………………..………………………………...91 Excluding Murder from Modification ........................................................................................ 91 Mental Impairment ..................................................................................................................... 98 Conviction Overturned ............................................................................................................. 106 Unfit to Plead ............................................................................................................................ 110 Unlawful Killings in Civil Proceedings: the OJ Simpson Scenario ......................................... 114 Imposing Conditions in the Forfeiture Modification Order ...................................................... 121 Protecting the Property of the Deceased Victim from Dissipation ........................................... 123 Part 6 – Modification of the Common Law Forfeiture Rule…………………..…………………131 Classes of Unlawful Killing where Modification may be Appropriate .................................... 131 Consultation Data Overview: In Which Classes of Unlawful Killing Would Modification of the Forfeiture Rule be Appropriate? ............................................................................................... 156 SALRI's Observations and Conclusions ................................................................................... 168 Exercise of Judicial Discretion ................................................................................................. 173 Status to Apply for a Modification Order ................................................................................. 184 Time Limits on Applying for a Modification Order ................................................................. 185 Judge to Preside Over Forfeiture Proceedings .......................................................................... 188 Part 7 – The Effect of the Forfeiture Rule……………………………………………..……….....191 Codifying the Effect of the Forfeiture Rule .............................................................................. 191 Executors, Administrators and Trustees ................................................................................... 195 The Deceased Victim
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Linda Scott for Sydney Strong, Local, Committed
    The South Sydney Herald is available online: www.southsydneyherald.com.au FREE printed edition every month to 21,000+ regular readers. VOLUME ONE NUMBER FORTY-NINE MAR’07 CIRCULATION 21,000 ALEXANDRIA BEACONSFIELD CHIPPENDALE DARLINGTON ERSKINEVILLE KINGS CROSS NEWTOWN REDFERN SURRY HILLS WATERLOO WOOLLOOMOOLOO ZETLAND RESTORE HUMAN RIGHTS BRING DAVID HICKS HOME New South Wales decides PROTEST AT 264 PITT STREET, CITY The South Sydney Herald gives you, as a two page insert, SUNDAY MARCH 25 ✓ information you need to know about your voting electorates. PAGES 8 & 13 More on PAGE 15 Water and housing: Labor and Greens Frank hits a high note - good news for live music? go toe to toe John Wardle Bill Birtles and Trevor Davies The live music scene in NSW is set to receive a new and much fairer regu- Heffron Labor incumbent Kristina latory system, after Planning Minister Keneally has denied that the State Frank Sartor and the Iemma Govern- government’s promised desalination ment implemented amendments to plant will cause road closures and the Local Government Act including extensive roadwork in Erskineville. a streamlined process to regulate Claims that the $1.9 billion desalina- entertainment in NSW and bring us tion plant at Kurnell will cause two more into line with other states. years of roadworks across Sydney’s Passed in the last week of Parlia- southern suburbs were first made by ment in November 2006, these the Daily Telegraph in February. reforms are “long overdue, and State government plans revealed extremely good news for the live that the 9 km pipeline needed to music industry” says Planning connect the city water tunnel with the Minister Frank Sartor.
    [Show full text]
  • Shattering and Moving Beyond the Gutenberg Paradigm: the Dawn of the Electronic Will
    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 42 2008 Shattering and Moving Beyond the Gutenberg Paradigm: The Dawn of the Electronic Will Joseph Karl Grant Capital University Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph K. Grant, Shattering and Moving Beyond the Gutenberg Paradigm: The Dawn of the Electronic Will, 42 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 105 (2008). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol42/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SHATTERING AND MOVING BEYOND THE GUTENBERG PARADIGM: THE DAWN OF THE ELECTRONIC WILL Joseph Karl Grant* INTRODUCTION Picture yourself watching a movie. In the film, a group of four siblings are dressed in dark suits and dresses. The siblings, Bill Jones, Robert Jones, Margaret Jones and Sally Johnson, have just returned from their elderly mother's funeral. They sit quietly in their mother's attorney's office intently watching and listening to a videotape their mother, Ms. Vivian Jones, made before her death. On the videotape, Ms. Jones expresses her last will and testament. Ms. Jones clearly states that she would like her sizable real estate holdings to be divided equally among her four children and her valuable blue-chip stock investments to be used to pay for her grandchildren's education.
    [Show full text]
  • The Large Professional Service Firm: a New Force in the Regulative Bargain
    21 UNSW Law Journal Volume 40(1) 11 THE LARGE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRM: A NEW FORCE IN THE REGULATIVE BARGAIN JUSTINE ROGERS, DIMITY KINGSFORD SMITH AND JOHN CHELLEW I INTRODUCTION This article charts the rise of a new force in the regulative bargain:1 the large organisation or ‘professional service firm’. The ‘regulative bargain’ refers to the bargain, both theoretical and real, 2 between the professions and the state, on behalf of society. Increasingly, these parties actively negotiate the exchange of professional benefits and responsibilities, and how, where and for what purpose these will be allocated and enforced. This bargain is shaped too by the political climate and culture, and the access to the networks within which this agreement takes place. 3 The classic bargain is the grant of self-regulation and other Lecturer, UNSW Law, MSc (Oxon), DPhil (Oxon). Correspondence to Dr Justine Rogers <[email protected]>. Professor and Director of the Centre for Law, Markets and Regulation (‘CLMR’), UNSW Sydney, LLM (London School of Economics) LLB (Sydney) BA (Sydney). Senior Research Fellow, UNSW Law. LLB (Monash), BA (Monash). Member of the CLMR, UNSW Law. The authors acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council and the Professional Standards Councils for this work. They are also grateful for the support of professional partners to the grant, law firms Allens and Corrs Chambers Westgarth. The authors also acknowledge the support of the CLMR at UNSW Law, particularly the work of CLMR interns, Deborah Hartstein and Jason Zhang. They are also grateful for the considered comments of two anonymous referees.
    [Show full text]
  • DATES of TRIALS Until October 1775, and Again from December 1816
    DATES OF TRIALS Until October 1775, and again from December 1816, the printed Proceedings provide both the start and the end dates of each sessions. Until the 1750s, both the Gentleman’s and (especially) the London Magazine scrupulously noted the end dates of sessions, dates of subsequent Recorder’s Reports, and days of execution. From December 1775 to October 1816, I have derived the end dates of each sessions from newspaper accounts of the trials. Trials at the Old Bailey usually began on a Wednesday. And, of course, no trials were held on Sundays. ***** NAMES & ALIASES I have silently corrected obvious misspellings in the Proceedings (as will be apparent to users who hyper-link through to the trial account at the OBPO), particularly where those misspellings are confirmed in supporting documents. I have also regularized spellings where there may be inconsistencies at different appearances points in the OBPO. In instances where I have made a more radical change in the convict’s name, I have provided a documentary reference to justify the more marked discrepancy between the name used here and that which appears in the Proceedings. ***** AGE The printed Proceedings almost invariably provide the age of each Old Bailey convict from December 1790 onwards. From 1791 onwards, the Home Office’s “Criminal Registers” for London and Middlesex (HO 26) do so as well. However, no volumes in this series exist for 1799 and 1800, and those for 1828-33 inclusive (HO 26/35-39) omit the ages of the convicts. I have not comprehensively compared the ages reported in HO 26 with those given in the Proceedings, and it is not impossible that there are discrepancies between the two.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Reason Into British Penal Code 1730-1823
    International ResearchScape Journal Volume 6 Article 6 December 2019 The Unwavering Movement: Integrating Reason into British Penal Code 1730-1823 Rebecca M. Good Bowling Green State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/irj Part of the Christianity Commons, Common Law Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, European History Commons, European Languages and Societies Commons, European Law Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, and the Other Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Good, Rebecca M. (2019) "The Unwavering Movement: Integrating Reason into British Penal Code 1730-1823," International ResearchScape Journal: Vol. 6 , Article 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25035/irj.06.01.06 Available at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/irj/vol6/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ScholarWorks@BGSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in International ResearchScape Journal by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@BGSU. Good: Integrating Reason into British Penal Code The Unwavering Movement: Integrating Reason into British Penal Code 1730-1823 At approximately 7 o’clock in the morning on July 9, 1709, Chris Slaughterford of Westbury Green was loaded into an open cart and led along a slow and solemn journey from Newgate Prison to his final destination at the Tyburn gallows. The excruciating three-mile journey would have been accompanied by common people who lined the streets, anticipating the coming execution. Slaughterford was a convicted murderer, said to have taken the life of his betrothed, Jane Young on the 5th of October 1708. Young’s body was found floating in a pond, a month after her disappearance in October appearing to have, “many marks of violence.” After public suspicion became heavily fixated on Slaughterford, he voluntarily surrendered himself to two local officers.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 3 KOALA and OTHER MATTERS – the 1910S
    CHAPTER 3 KOALA AND OTHER MATTERS – THE 1910s ‘Some years ago, the Wild Life Preservation Society of Australia found that almost the whole of the skins of the koala were being sent for sale to the United States of America – many of them during closed seasons in Australia, when the killing of the animal was forbidden.’ David Stead KOALA The preservation of the koala and the re-establishment of the animal in at least some of its native haunts in the Eastern States of Australia were among the major objectives of the Society since its inception in 1909. The Society was successful in obtaining official protection for the koala, first in 1911 and 1912, in New South Wales. David Stead always insisted that 'koala' should be pronounced 'k'ola'; he also frequently referred to it as the 'native bear' which of course is a misnomer as the koala is not a 'bear.' Although the battle to save the koala began as early as 1909, action was still being taken in the 1920s and 1930s, and in fact continues even into the 21st century. The Story of the Great Slaughter was the heading to an article by David Stead accompanying the Annual Report for the year 1927. In 1927 the Queensland Government declared an open season of one month during which the koala could be killed for its skin. No less than 584,738 koalas were actually recorded as being killed during that time, although many of the skins would have been collected earlier, in expectation of a new open season.
    [Show full text]
  • COUNTING EXECUTIONS and PARDONS at the OLD BAILEY, 1730-1837 Simon Devereaux1
    Law, Crime and History (2016) 1 THE BLOODIEST CODE: COUNTING EXECUTIONS AND PARDONS AT THE OLD BAILEY, 1730-1837 Simon Devereaux1 Abstract This article presents the most detailed and accurate accounting to date of capital convicts at the Old Bailey during the era of England’s ‘Bloody Code’ (1730-1837), at which time that court produced more capital convictions and executions than any other jurisdiction in the western world. It notes and explains some limitations of the two most authoritative sources for the statistics of capital punishment at the Old Bailey currently available: the published trial Proceedings of the court; and the statistical returns presented to Parliament from 1818 onwards. And it reviews the sorts of criteria that need to be considered in determining how a more complete accounting of all those condemned and executed might be achieved. Keywords: Capital punishment; Old Bailey; ‘Bloody Code’ Introduction This article introduces and explains the most extensive and accurate accounting of execution and pardon at the Old Bailey that has yet been attempted. It is derived from a new web-based dataset whose aim is to provide – and to make searchable – all of the relevant and recoverable details (with documentary references) pertaining to the 9,474 men, women and (sometimes) children who were capitally convicted at London’s Old Bailey courthouse from 1730 to 1837.2 The Old Bailey (more properly known to contemporaries as the ‘Sessions House’) was the largest single criminal jurisdiction in eighteenth century Europe, the population of London having surpassed that of its principal continental rival Paris no later than 1700.3 Even so, until the last three years examined here, the Old Bailey did not embrace the entire metropolitan conurbation.
    [Show full text]
  • Case and ~C®Mment
    251 CASE AND ~C®MMENT. CROWN -SERVANT- INCORPORATION -IMMUNITY FROM BEING SUED. The recent case of Gilleghan v. Minister of Healthl decided by Farwell, J., is a decision on the questions : Will an action lie against a Minister-of the Crown in respect of an act admittedly done as a Minister of the Crown? Or -is the true view that the only remedy is against the Crown by petition of right? Does the mere incorporation. of a servant of the Crown confer the privilege of suing and the liability to be sued? The rationale for the general rule that a servant of the Crown cannot be sued in his official capacity is that the servant holds no assets in his official capacity which can be seized in satisfaction of a judgment. He holds only on behalf of the Crown.2 Collins, M.R., in Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General3 said : "The revenue of the country cannot be reached by an action against an official, unless there is some provision to be found in the legisla~ tion to enable this to be done." In the Gilleghan case the defendant moved to-strike out the statement of claim. The Minister of Health was established by the Ministry of Health Act- which provided, inter alia, that the Minister "may sue and be sued in the name of the Minister of Health" and that "for the purpose of acquiring and holding land" the Minister for the time being "shall be a corporation sole." Farwell, J ., decided that the provision that the Minister may sue and be sued does not give the plaintiff a cause of action for breach of contract against the Minister.
    [Show full text]
  • Released Under Foi
    File 2018/15258/01 – Document 001 Applicant Name Applicant Type Summary All briefing minutes prepared for Ministers (and ministerial staff), the Premier (and staff) and/or Deputy Premier (and staff) in respect of the Riverbank precinct for the period 2010 to Vickie Chapman MP MP present Total patronage at Millswood Station, and Wayville Station (individually) for each day from 1 Corey Wingard MP October 30 November inclusive Copies of all documents held by DPTI regarding the proposal to shift a government agency to Steven Marshall MP Port Adelaide created from 2013 to present The total annual funding spent on the Recreation and Sport Traineeship Incentive Program Tim Whetstone MP and the number of students and employers utilising this program since its inception A copy of all reports or modelling for the establishment of an indoor multi‐sports facility in Tim Whetstone MP South Australia All traffic count and maintenance reports for timber hulled ferries along the River Murray in Tim Whetstone MP South Australia from 1 January 2011 to 1 June 2015 Corey Wingard MP Vision of rail car colliding with the catenary and the previous pass on the down track Rob Brokenshire MLC MP Speed limit on SE freeway during a time frame in September 2014 Request a copy of the final report/independent planning assessment undertaken into the Hills Face Zone. I believe the former Planning Minister, the Hon Paul Holloway MLC commissioned Steven Griffiths MP MP the report in 2010 All submissions and correspondence, from the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years
    [Show full text]
  • The Decline of Revocation by Physical Act
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2019 The Decline of Revocation by Physical Act Barry Cushman Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons, and the Insurance Law Commons Recommended Citation Barry Cushman, The Decline of Revocation by Physical Act, 54 Real Prop., Tr. & Est. L.J. 243 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1416 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DECLINE OF REVOCATION BY PHYSICAL ACT Barry Cushman* Author's Synopsis: The power to revoke one's will by physical act was enshrined in Anglo-American law in 1677 by the Statute of Frauds. It remains the law in Great Britain, in such developed Commonwealth countries as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and in each state of the United States ofAmerica. Yet the revocation of wills by physical act has become badly out of phase with the law governing nonprobate transfers, which as a general matter requires that an instrument of transfer be revoked only by a writing signed by the transferor. This Article surveys the place of revocation by physical act in the law governing will substitutes, such as payable-on-death designations on bank accounts, transfer-on-deathdesignations on brokerage accounts, life insurance and annuities, beneficiary deeds, and revocable trusts.
    [Show full text]
  • 22 October 2017 the Principal Research Officer Select Committee
    EOLC Sub 680 Rec'd 22/10/2017 22 October 2017 The Principal Research Officer Select Committee on End of Life Choices Legislative Assembly Parliament House PERTH WA 6000 Email [email protected] Dear Principal Research Officer RE WHY EUTHANASIA HAS NO PLACE IN AUSTRALIA WHY EUTHANASIA SUPPORTERS MUST FALL ON THEIR OWN SWORD WHY EUTHANASIA IN ANY OF ITS FORMS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED WHY EUTHANASIA MUST NOT SEE THE SUNSET ON THIS, THE LONGEST DAY My name is David Foletta. I am a solicitor admitted to practice in the State of New South Wales. MY SUBMISSIONS It is my pleasure to make submissions to the Inquiry into the need for laws in Western Australia to allow citizens to make informed decisions regarding their own end of life choices (Inquiry). MY POSITION ON EUTHANASIA I oppose all forms of euthanasia. EVANGELICALISM NOT THE ONLY REASON FOR OPPOSITION I hold to a Christian ethic, however, as the committee will see, I hold opposition for reasons that people who have a range of responses to questions of theology could also agree with. CONSENT TO PUBLICATION I give my consent to the public disclosure of this letter, the email serving this letter and all attachments to this letter. In my respectful submission, I actually consider that the public disclosure of the contents of my submissions is vital to the safeguarding of people in Western Australia and by consequence, all people around Australia. IN PERSON ATTENDANCE AT PUBLIC HEARING I am willing to travel to Western Australia to attend a public hearing in person.
    [Show full text]
  • 05 May 2021 Clarion 210425
    CLArion Issue No 2105 01 May 2021 CLA on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CivilLibertiesAus/ Email newsletter of Civil Liberties Australia (A04043) Email: Secretary(at)cla.asn.au Web: http://www.cla.asn.au/ ____________________________________________ What’s the state of justice in Australia? Bill Rowlings, CEO of Civil Liberties Australia, has written an eye-opening, extended critique of the state of justice in Australia. At 11,500 words, it covers: Courts, judges and juries; Buildings; Judges, qualifications, trials; Juries; Laws; Police; Criminals; Prisons. …and suggestions on what to do to improve things. For a PDF version to be sent to you, please email the secretary: secretary(at)cla.asn.au Federation fails Australia again: children suffer In a classic case of Australia’s federation failing, an outbreak of interstate squabbling and ‘law and order’ electioneering is preventing a national approach to a common age of criminal responsibility for children. After years of study and analysis at ministerial council level, and a further two years of research by the WA Department of Justice in 2019 and 2020, Attorneys-General were counselled that the best way forward was to raise the AoCR (Age of Criminal Responsibility) to 14 in every state and territory. The report told them that children at 10 had no proper understanding of the nuances of right from wrong, and that 14 was the appropriate age to impose “adult” legality on kids. All states and territories should make 14 the minimum AoCR, it recommended. But Queensland reneged, facing a state election where the Labor government feared being accused as soft on crime.
    [Show full text]