DOCSLIB.ORG

Policing Young People in NSW

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Policing Young People in NSW Policing Young People in NSW A study of the Suspect Targeting Management Plan Report Authors Vicki Sentas and Camilla Pandolfni This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommerical-NoDerivs 3.0 license. You may copy and distribute the document, only in its entirety, as long as it is attributed to the authors and used for non-commercial, educational or public policy purposes. ISBN 978-0-7334-3774-8 Suggested citation: Sentas, V and Pandolfini, C (2017) Policing Young People in NSW: A Study of the Suspect Targeting Management Plan. A Report of the Youth Justice Coalition NSW (Sydney: Youth Justice Coalition NSW) Report Authors: Dr Vicki Sentas (UNSW Law and Redfern Legal Centre Police Powers Clinic) Camilla Pandolfini (Public Interest Advocacy Centre) Research assistance and contributions: Emma Bastable, Scarlet Wilcock, Kate Duffy The Members of the Youth Justice Coalition STMP working group have been: Kate Duffy (Marrickville Legal Centre) Julianne Elliott (Legal Aid NSW) Jo Evans (Legal Aid NSW) Peta MacGillivray (Legal Aid NSW) Jacki Maxton (Shopfront Youth Legal Centre) Liam McAuliffe (Marrickville Legal Centre) Rhiannon O’Donoghue (Legal Aid NSW) Camilla Pandolfini (Public Interest Advocacy Centre) Vicki Sentas (UNSW Law and Redfern Legal Centre Police Powers Clinic) Thank you to all of the individuals who reviewed and provided invaluable feedback and comments on this report, and to all the student volunteers who assisted with this report in some way. This report was written on the land of the Gadigal People of the Eora Nation. The Youth Justice Coalition acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of the lands on which we work as the first people of this country. Youth Justice Coalition Report Policing Young People in NSW: A study of the Suspect Targeting Management Plan Contents page Executive Summary 1 Recommendations 2 1. Introduction 2 1.1 Who has prepared this report? 1.2 A focus on young people: the research question and method 1.3 Limits to this research: domestic violence 1.4 What is the STMP: a tool, a process, a plan 2. The use of the STMP in Local Area Commands 8 2.1 How data on use of the STMP was obtained 2.2 Summary of use of the STMP in 2014-15 FY for the LACs of Redfern, Parramatta, Orana, Canobolas, Bankstown, Blacktown, Blue Mountains, Mount Druitt, Barwon and St Marys. 2.3 Use of risk categories in the STMP 2.4 Gender and use of the STMP 2.5 Age and the use of the STMP 2.6 Racial background and use of the STMP 2.7 What the available data tells us about the targets of the STMP 3. Police powers in NSW 16 3.1 Personal search powers 3.2 Police directions 3.3 Safeguards relating to police powers 3.4 Trespass to land 4. Case Studies 20 4.1 Methodology 4.2 Findings 4.3 Select Case Studies: Six experiences of the STMP 5. Discussion 25 5.1 Young people have a right to know that they are subject to an STMP and their risk category 5.2 The reasons that young people have been placed on an STMP 5.3 Implementation of the STMP: no grounds for reasonable suspicion 5.4 The impacts of the STMP on Aboriginal young people 5.5 The impacts of the STMP on Aboriginal young people: The disruption of family relations 5.6 The impact of the STMP on therapeutic justice and diversion 5.7 The impacts of the STMP: Young people with cognitive and mental impairment Youth Justice Coalition Report Policing Young People in NSW: A study of the Suspect Targeting Management Plan Contents (cont) 6. Youth offending in NSW and the relevant policy and legal frameworks 38 6.1 Measuring the effectiveness of the STMP 6.2 Youth offending in NSW: An overview 6.3 Young Offenders Act 1997 6.4 NSW Police Force Youth Strategy 2013 - 2017 6.5 NSW Police Force Aboriginal Strategic Direction 2012 – 2017 6.6 Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department: National Youth Policing Model 6.7 The Convention on the Rights of the Child 6.8 Alternative programs in NSW relevant to young people in the criminal justice system 7. The STMP: an ineffective crime prevention tool for young people 50 7.1 Risk factors for involvement of young people in the criminal justice system 7.2 Best practice in youth crime prevention APPENDIX APPENDIX ONE: Local Area Commands 57 APPENDIX TWO: Snapshot of the STMP in each Local Area Command 59 Youth Justice Coalition Report Policing Young People in NSW: A study of the Suspect Targeting Management Plan Executive Summary The New South Wales Police Force (NSW Police) Suspect Targeting Management Plan (STMP) seeks to prevent future offending by targeting repeat offenders and people police believe are likely to commit future crime. The STMP is both a police intelligence tool that uses risk assessment to identify suspects and a policing program that guides police interaction with individuals who are subject to the program. This report focuses on how the STMP is applied to children and young people. The report documents how the STMP is used in relation to young people, young people’s experiences with the STMP and the impact that the STMP is having on young people’s interactions with police and criminal justice. This report also documents the impact of the STMP on policing practice and police application of the law. Findings in this report are based on i) available quantitative data on program participants, ii) de-identified case studies drawn from interviews with lawyers, iii) publicly available guidance given to police on STMP operational procedures, and iv) analysis of case law and legislation. The research has been limited by the lack of publicly available information on the STMP and the absence, to date, of scrutiny and oversight of the program. By adopting a mixed methods approach, the report is able to make robust preliminary findings and identify areas for further investigation. The preliminary findings based on this research are: • Disproportionate use against young people and Aboriginal people: Data shows the STMP disproportionately targets young people, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and has been used against children as young as ten. • Patterns of ‘oppressive policing’ that may be damaging relationships between police and young people: Young people targeted on the STMP experience a pattern of repeated contact with police in confrontational circumstances such as through stop and search, move on directions and regular home visits. The STMP risks damaging relationships between young people and the police. Young people, their families or legal representatives are rarely aware of criteria used to add or remove people from the STMP. As the case studies show, young people experience the STMP as a pattern of oppressive, unjust policing. • Increasing young people’s costly contact with the criminal justice system and no observable impact on crime prevention: The STMP has the effect of increasing vulnerable young people’s contact with the criminal justice system. Application of the STMP can be seen to undermine key objectives of the NSW youth criminal justice system, including diversion, rehabilitation and therapeutic justice. The research has identified several instances where Aboriginal young people on Youth Koori Court therapeutic programs have had their rehabilitation compromised by remaining on the STMP. There is no publicly available evidence that the STMP reduces youth crime. • Encouraging poor police practice: In some instances, the exercise of police search powers in relation to a young person on the STMP have been found unlawful by the courts. The STMP may be inadvertently diminishing police understanding of the lawful use of powers (set out in the Law Enforcement Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA)) and thereby exposing police to reduced efficacy and civil action. • No transparency and an absence of oversight, scrutiny or evaluation: The operation of the STMP is not transparent or accountable. Criteria for placement on the STMP are not publicly available, individuals cannot access their STMP plan and it is unclear what criteria are used by police to remove a person from the STMP. The report proposes a number of recommendations based on these findings and the research represented in this report. These recommendations provide clear and specific guidance to the NSW Police Force and the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission. Youth Justice Coalition Report 1 Policing Young People in NSW: A study of the Suspect Targeting Management Plan Recommendations Based on the research and findings presented here, the report recommends that: 1. NSW Police discontinue applying the STMP to children under 18. Children suspected of being at medium or high risk of reoffending should be considered for evidence-based prevention programs that address the causes of reoffending (such as through Youth on Track, Police Citizens Youth Clubs NSW (PCYC) or locally based programs developed in accordance with Just Reinvest NSW), rather than placement on an STMP. 2. NSW Police make the STMP policy and operational arrangements publicly available to enable transparency and accountability. 3. NSW Police amend the STMP policy so that any person considered to have a ‘low risk’ of committing offences not be subject to the STMP. 4. NSW Police amend the STMP Policy to mandate formal notification by police to any individual placed on a STMP, including reasons for placement on the STMP and the date of next review. Subsequent notifications to individuals on an STMP should outline the outcome of the review and reasons for the STMP being maintained or discontinued. 5. NSW Police make data on the STMP publicly available through the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR). Available data should include demographic information (age, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status, ethnicity, Local Area Command LAC), as well as data on the length of time enrolled in the STMP and the category of risk determined.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Theorising Criminalisation: the Value of a Modalities Approach Luke J
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Online University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts 2018 Theorising criminalisation: the value of a modalities approach Luke J. McNamara University of New South Wales, [email protected] Julia Quilter University of Wollongong, [email protected] Russell G. Hogg Queensland University of Technology, [email protected] Heather Douglas University of Queensland, [email protected] Arlie Loughnan University of Sydney, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Publication Details L. McNamara, J. Quilter, R. Hogg, H. Douglas, A. Loughnan & D. Brown, 'Theorising criminalisation: the value of a modalities approach' (2018) 17 (3) International Journal For Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 91-121. Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Theorising criminalisation: the value of a modalities approach Abstract 'Criminalisation' has attracted considerable scholarly attention in recent years, much of it concerned with identifying the normative limits of criminal law-making. Starting from the position that effective theorisation of the legitimate uses of criminalisation as a public policy tool requires a robust empirical foundation, this article introduces a novel conceptual and methodological approach, focused on recognising a variety of modalities of criminalisation. The first part of this article introduces and explains the modalities approach we have developed. The es cond part seeks to demonstrate the utility of a modalities approach by presenting and discussing the findings of a pilot study of more than 100 criminal law statutes enacted in three Australian jurisdictions (New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria) between 2012 and 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Theorising Criminalisation: the Value of a Modalities Approach
    This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: McNamara, Luke, Quilter, Julia, Hogg, Russell, Douglas, Heather, Lough- nan, Arlie, & Brown, David (2018) Theorising criminalisation:The value of a modalities approach. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 7(3), pp. 91-121. This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/212397/ c The Author(s) 2018. This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu- ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected] License: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v7i3.511 www.crimejusticejournal.com IJCJ&SD 2018
    [Show full text]
  • Theorising Criminalisation: the Value of a Modalities Approach Luke J
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts 2018 Theorising criminalisation: the value of a modalities approach Luke J. McNamara University of New South Wales, [email protected] Julia Quilter University of Wollongong, [email protected] Russell G. Hogg Queensland University of Technology, [email protected] Heather Douglas University of Queensland, [email protected] Arlie Loughnan University of Sydney, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Publication Details L. McNamara, J. Quilter, R. Hogg, H. Douglas, A. Loughnan & D. Brown, 'Theorising criminalisation: the value of a modalities approach' (2018) 17 (3) International Journal For Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 91-121. Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Theorising criminalisation: the value of a modalities approach Abstract 'Criminalisation' has attracted considerable scholarly attention in recent years, much of it concerned with identifying the normative limits of criminal law-making. Starting from the position that effective theorisation of the legitimate uses of criminalisation as a public policy tool requires a robust empirical foundation, this article introduces a novel conceptual and methodological approach, focused on recognising a variety of modalities of criminalisation. The first part of this article introduces and explains the modalities approach we have developed. The es cond part seeks to demonstrate the utility of a modalities approach by presenting and discussing the findings of a pilot study of more than 100 criminal law statutes enacted in three Australian jurisdictions (New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria) between 2012 and 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sabotage of Bail Reform in New South Wales
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences & Humanities 1-1-2014 Speaking too soon: the sabotage of bail reform in New South Wales D. Brown UNSW, Queensland University of Technology Julia Quilter University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brown, D. and Quilter, Julia, "Speaking too soon: the sabotage of bail reform in New South Wales" (2014). Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers. 1715. https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/1715 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Speaking too soon: the sabotage of bail reform in New South Wales Abstract Within just over one month of coming into operation in May 2014, the new Bail Act 2013 (NSW), a product of long-term law reform consideration, was reviewed and then amended after talk-back radio ‘shock jock’ and tabloid newspaper outcry over three cases. This article examines the media triggers, the main arguments of the review conducted by former New South Wales (NSW) Attorney General John Hatzistergos, and the amendments, with our analysis of the judicial interpretation of the Act thus far providing relevant background. We argue that the amendments are premature, unnecessary, create complexity and confusion, and, quite possibly, will have unintended consequences: in short, they are a mess. The whole process of reversal is an example of law and order politics driven by the shock jocks and tabloid media, the views of which, are based on fundamental misconceptions of the purpose of bail and its place in the criminal process, resulting in a conflation of accusation, guilt and punishment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Bail Reform: the New South Wales Bail Act, 1976–2013
    1 THE POLITICS OF BAIL REFORM: THE NEW SOUTH WALES BAIL ACT, 1976–2013 MAXWELL FRANCIS TAYLOR Bachelor of Arts (University of NSW), Bachelor of Laws (University of NSW), Bachelor of Arts (Honours) (Macquarie University) Macquarie University Law School 9 October 2013 This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 STATEMENT: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 1.2 Background …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11 1.3 Research Question ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15 1.4 Methodology ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 18 1.5 Literature Review ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26 1.5.1 Literature on the big picture crisis …………………………………………………………………. 26 1.5.2 Literature considering the right to bail and the erosion of the presumption in favour of bail …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27 1.5.3 Literature concerning the effects of bail laws and other changes to bail law on disadvantaged and indigenous accused …………………………………………….. 33 1.5.4 Literature considering the role of the media in bringing about changes to bail law …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 35 1.5.5 Literature considering public attitudes …………………………………………………………. 37 1.6 Chapter outline ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38 CHAPTER 2. THE IMPORTANCE OF BAIL AND THE HISTORY OF BAIL IN ENGLAND AND NEW SOUTH
    [Show full text]
  • Incarceration Rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
    Incarceration Rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Legal Aid NSW submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission September 2017 323 CASTLEREAGH ST HAYMARKET NSW 2000 / DX 5 SYDNEY Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2 Bail and the remand population ............................................................................ 5 Chapter 3 Sentencing and Aboriginality .............................................................................. 13 Chapter 4 Sentencing options ............................................................................................. 15 Chapter 5 Prison programs, parole and unsupervised release ............................................ 19 Chapter 6 Fines and driver licences .................................................................................... 31 Chapter 7 Justice procedure offences ................................................................................. 42 Chapter 8 Alcohol ............................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 9 Female offenders ................................................................................................ 46 Chapter 10 Aboriginal justice agreements ........................................................................... 50 Chapter 11 Access to justice issues ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Changing the Rules on Bail: an Analysis of Recent Legislative Reforms in Three Australian Jurisdictions
    642 UNSW Law Journal Volume 43(2) CHANGING THE RULES ON BAIL: AN ANALYSIS OF RECENT LEGISLATIVE REFORMS IN THREE AUSTRALIAN JURISDICTIONS LACHLAN AULD* AND JULIA QUILTER** Bail decisions are a high-volume and hugely consequential component of the Australian criminal justice system, and yet, laws governing access to bail have rarely been the subject of systematic analysis. This article sheds new light on how bail laws have changed and what this reveals about how and why governments employ the criminal law as a public policy tool. Working with a dataset of 71 statutes enacted in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria during the 10-year period between 2009 and 2018, we employ a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis to illuminate key features and patterns. Our main findings are that bail law remains an active site of statutory reform, and that the object of mitigating harm-risk routinely takes priority over the fundamental rights of the accused. As a consequence, the strong trajectory of contemporary bail law reform has been to restrict rather than expand access to bail. I INTRODUCTION The regularity and intensity with which governments make changes to the rules and procedures of criminal law – and so, to the parameters of criminalisation and punishment – has been the subject of considerable scholarly attention for some time.1 Despite the fact that bail decisions are a high-volume and hugely consequential component of the Australian criminal justice system, and that bail laws have been an active site of legislative amendment, there have been few systematic studies of changes to bail laws over time.2 Studies concerning bail reform are often limited to examining * BCom / LLB (Hons I, University Medal) (University of Wollongong).
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Bail Act 2013 Final Report
    Fall 08 Review of the Bail Act 2013 John Hatzistergos June 2015 Final report Table of Contents Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................. 4 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 14 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 17 2. The ‘show cause’ requirement .................................................................................. 20 2.1 Intended operation of the show cause requirement ...................................................... 22 2.2 Approaches to ‘show cause’ in Queensland and Victoria ............................................ 23 2.3 Application of the show cause requirement in NSW ................................................... 28 2.4 The onus on the accused to demonstrate show cause................................................... 32 2.5 Factors to be considered in determining bail in show cause offences........................... 34 2.6 What offences should be show cause offences ............................................................ 36 2.7 Impact of the show cause requirement on the remand population ................................ 38 2.8 Impact of the show cause requirement on the profile of remandees ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Bail Act 2013
    Bail Act 2013 June 2018 Justice Strategy and Policy Department of Justice www.justice.nsw.gov.au Phone: 02 8346 1281 Fax: 02 8061 9370 Level 3, Henry Deane Building, 20 Lee St, SYDNEY 2000 GPO Box 31 SYDNEY 2001 Translating and interpreter service If you need an interpreter ring 131 450 and ask the operator to ph : 02 8224 5330. For alternative formats (audio tape, electronic or Braille versions) of this brochure, contact Justice Strategy and Policy on ph: 02 8346 1281 or Diversity Services Email: [email protected] Phone: 02 8688 7507 Fax: 02 8688 9626 TTY: 02 8688 7733 for people who have a speech or hearing impairment. © State of New South Wales through the Department of Justice 2018. You may copy, distribute, display, download and otherwise freely deal with this work for any purpose, provided that you attribute the Department of Justice as the owner. Disclaimer: This document has been prepared by the Department of Justice for general information purposes. While every care has been taken in relation to its accuracy, no warranty is given or implied. Further, recipients should obtain their own independent advice before making any decisions that rely on this information. ISBN: 978-1-922254-32-0 Executive Summary This is a report on the statutory review (the review) of the Bail Act 2013 (the Act). The Act provides a legislative framework for a decision as to whether a person who is accused of an offence or is otherwise required to appear before a court should be detained or released, with or without conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Bail Act 2013
    Fall 08 Review of the Bail Act 2013 John Hatzistergos July 2014 Table of Contents 1. Terms of Reference ................................................................................................... 3 2. Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Purpose of the Bail Act (Chapter 5) ................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Unacceptable risk test (Chapter 6) ................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Serious offenders (Chapter 7) .......................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Multiple bail applications (Chapter 8) .......................................................................................... 9 2.5 Bail offence (Chapter 9) ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.6 Developing a culture around the new Bail Act (Chapter 10) ............................................ 10 3. Recommendations .................................................................................................. 11 4. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 14 4.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 The
    [Show full text]
  • The Recent Bail Act Changes
    The Recent Bail Act Changes Presented by Daniel Covington Solicitor Legal Aid NSW [email protected] 28 March 2017 Page | 1 History of the Bail Act The Bail Act (1978) began as a “relatively” simple piece of legislation. For nearly all offences there was a presumption in favour of bail. 1 Over time the Act acquired a large number of amendments involving a rather complicated mixture of presumptions in favour and against bail and an exceptional circumstances test for certain offences. The following table indicates the changes to the presumptions for bail that occurred under the 1978 Act. Changes to the presumption in favour of bail since 1978 Amending legislation Commencement Summary of provision Bail (Amendment) Act 1986 25/05/1986 Added possession or supply of commercial quantities of prohibited drugs to the exceptions to the presumption in favour of bail. Bail (Personal and Family Violence) 29/10/1987 Introduced an exception to the presumption in Amendment Act 1987 favour of bail in the case of a domestic violence offence, where the accused person has previously failed to comply with any bail condition imposed for the protection and welfare of the victim. This presumption is restored only if the relevant officer or Court is satisfied that those bail conditions will be observed in the future. Bail (Amendment) Act 1988 21/08/1988 Inserted s.8A, creating a presumption against bail for possession or supply of commercial quantities of prohibited drugs (i.e. the offences covered by the 1986 amendments) and drug importation offences involving commercial quantities. In addition, created an exception to the presumption in favour of bail (but not a presumption against bail) for similar drug offences involving twice the indictable quantity of prohibited drugs, and for drug importation offences involving twice the indictable quantity.
    [Show full text]
  • LWPD 920 – Research Project – Bail Act 2013 (NSW): the Unacceptable Risk?
    LWPD 920 – Research Project – Bail Act 2013 (NSW): The Unacceptable Risk? The aim of this project is to provide an insight into the way the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) may be interpreted and applied. This project will have a particular focus on the new "unacceptable risk" test.1 Bail applications made with New South Wales are currently governed by the Bail Act 1978 (NSW) which involves a complicated mixture of presumptions that for and against bail.2 When a bail application is made under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) the court will be asked to consider what risk is attached to the applicant being on bail.3 If the risk is considered to be unacceptable, and no conditions can be implemented to mitigate that risk, the court may refuse bail.4 In order to gain an understanding into how the unacceptable risk test may be applied and interpreted this report will focus on two objectives: 1. What the phrase "unacceptable risk" might mean in the context of an application for bail under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW)? 2. Who might bear the onus of persuading the court that there is an "unacceptable risk" as required by the Bail Act 2013 (NSW)? In order to achieve these objectives an exercise in statutory interpretation will be required. To assist this exercise support will be drawn from the way other jurisdictions dealt with questions of interpretation in pieces of legislation that deal with similar types of applications.5 1 Bail Act 2013 (NSW) s 17. 2 See Bail Act 1978 (NSW) s 6 – 9.
    [Show full text]