DOCSLIB.ORG

Administration of Justice Offences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Administration of Justice Offences VICTORIAN PARLIAMENT L AW R EFORM C OMMITTEE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OFFENCES F INAL R EPORT Ordered to be printed Melbourne Government Printer June 2004 No. 75 of session 2003-2004 Level 8, 35 Spring Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Tel: (03) 9651 3644 Email: [email protected] Website: www.parliament.vic.gov.au/lawreform Parliament of Victoria Law Reform Committee Administration of Justice Offences ISBN- 0-7313-5399-4 2 C OMMITTEE M EMBERSHIP C HAIR Mr Rob Hudson, MLA D EPUTY C HAIR Mr Noel Maughan, MLA M EMBERS Hon Andrew Brideson, MLC Hon Richard Dalla-Riva, MLC Ms Dianne Hadden, MLC Ms Dympna Beard, MLA Mr Tony Lupton, MLA S TAFF E XECUTIVE O FFICER Ms Merrin Mason R ESEARCH O FFICERS Ms Kristin Giles (to 4 February 2004) Ms Michelle McDonnell (from 11 March 2004) O FFICE M ANAGER Ms Jaime Cook iii iv Functions of the Victorian Parliament Law Reform Committee Under section 12 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 (Vic): (1) The functions of the Law Reform Committee are, if so required or permitted under this Act, to inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on any proposal, matter or thing concerned with— (a) legal, constitutional or parliamentary reform; (b) the administration of justice; (c) law reform. Terms of Reference Referred by the Governor in Council on 6 May 2003 To inquire into, consider and report to Parliament on: 1. The current state of law in Victoria in relation to administration of justice offences (such as perjury, perverting the course of justice, falsifying evidence and threatening witnesses); and 2. Whether these laws should be amended, and in what way, having particular regard to interstate laws and the recommendations of the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee Discussion Paper on Administration of Justice Offences (July 1997). v vi F OREWORD A system of justice fairly administered and free of corruption or obstruction underpins our democratic society. Public confidence in the justice system is fundamental to its proper functioning. Hence, offences which have a tendency to undermine or interfere with the justice system are considered to be serious in nature and usually carry heavy maximum penalties. It is these administration of justice offences which are the subject of this Report. The context of our review of these laws was set by the terms of reference for the inquiry which directed the Committee to have particular regard to interstate legislation and the recommendations of the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee (MCCOC) in their report on these offences. The benefits of consistency with other jurisdictions and of clarity and transparency of the law, became key themes in the Committee’s consideration of the issues raised. In Victoria the common law offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice covers a variety of conduct, whereas in many other jurisdictions separate statutory offences have been created to cover particular conduct. The Committee’s first task was to decide the threshold question of whether a general offence should be retained, or whether a codification of the offence by creating separate offences was desirable. The Committee chose the latter course believing that it had distinct advantages in terms of improving accessibility and clarity of the law, and in creating greater consistency with other jurisdictions. The other major administration of justice offence considered was perjury. Again, Victoria currently relies on common law for the definition of what constitutes perjury, and again the Committee determined that a move towards codification was appropriate. vii Whilst generally accepting that a change towards codification was advantageous the Committee was, however, careful to confine itself largely to clarifying, rather than extending, the existing law. Evidence received did not generally identify a need for expansion. In reaching its conclusions the Committee was given significant assistant from witnesses, particularly those practitioners in this area of law who provided essential information about how the law works in practice. I wish to express our sincere thanks to all those who made submissions both in writing and orally, to the Committee. The Committee is acutely aware of the very important role which stakeholder and public consultation plays in the production of our reports. I would also like to thank the members of the Committee for their contributions to this Report. The Report owes an enormous amount to the original research and writing of the discussion paper and draft by Kristin Giles, whose attention to detail provided many stakeholders with a succinct summary of the current law in this area for the first time. Kristin has now left the Committee but her expert contribution to this and other reports over the past two years has been greatly appreciated by the Committee. Michelle McDonnell has ably stepped in to redraft the final Report and finalise its recommendations. Merrin Mason, as always, has contributed her considerable expertise to the work done by the Committee on this reference, and skilfully supervised the research and discussion which have led to this Report. Jaime Cook has provided able administrative support and backup for the Committee’s work. This Report would not have been able to be concluded without the effective work of the staff team. The Committee hopes that this Report will result in reform which produces greater clarity of the law in this area, increased national consistency between Australian jurisdictions and improvements to the administration of justice in Victoria. I commend the Report to the Parliament. Rob Hudson MP, Chair viii T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Foreword ...............................................................................................................................................vii Table of Contents...................................................................................................................................ix Table of recommendations..................................................................................................................xiii Executive summary ............................................................................................................................xxv Chapter One – Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 Terms of reference ...............................................................................................................................2 Inquiry process ....................................................................................................................................3 Codification versus common law.........................................................................................................4 Which offences are regarded as “administration of justice offences”? ..............................................8 Common feature: a strike at the heart of the administration of justice .............................................13 Why codify? The advantages and disadvantages of codification.......................................................18 Chapter Two - Perverting the course of justice .................................................................................41 Structure of Chapter ..........................................................................................................................42 Terminology.......................................................................................................................................42 Completed offence – substantive not inchoate...................................................................................43 Summary of elements of the offence...................................................................................................45 “Tending to pervert”—the physical element .....................................................................................45 “Intending to pervert”—the mental element .....................................................................................55 “Course of public justice”.................................................................................................................62 Sentencing..........................................................................................................................................69 Perverting the course of justice as a statutory offence— comparison with other jurisdictions.........75 ix General offence versus specific offences ...........................................................................................78 False accusation of offence................................................................................................................86 Chapter Three - Specific offences relating to evidence and witnesses .............................................95 Offences relating to interference with evidence.................................................................................96 Specific offences relating to interference with witnesses.................................................................111 Chapter Four – Accessory after the fact...........................................................................................149 Principal offences to which the offence applies...............................................................................151 Commission of principal offence .....................................................................................................155
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Imagereal Capture
    Some Aspects of Theft of Computer Software by M. Dunning I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to test the capability of New Zealand law to adequately deal with the impact that computers have on current notions of crimes relating to property. Has the criminal law kept pace with technology and continued to protect property interests or is our law flexible enough to be applied to new situations anyway? The increase of the moneyless society may mean a decrease in money motivated crimes of violence such as robbery, and an increase in white collar crime. Every aspect of life is being computerised-even our per­ sonality is on character files, with the attendant )ossibility of criminal breach of privacy. The problems confronted in this area are mostly definitional. While it may be easy to recognise morally opprobrious conduct, the object of such conduct may not be so easily categorised as criminal. A factor of this is a general lack of understanding of the computer process, so this would seem an appropriate place to begin the inquiry. II. THE COMPUTER Whiteside I identifies five key elements in a computer system. (1) Translation of data into a form readable by the computer, called input; and subject to manipulation by the introduction of false data. Remote terminals can be situated anywhere outside the cen­ tral processing unit (CPU), connected by (usually) telephone wires over which data may be transmitted, e.g. New Zealand banks on­ line to Databank. Outside users are given a site code number (identifying them) and an access code number (enabling entry to the CPU) which "plug" their remote terminal in.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Law Fraud Liability to Account for It to the Owner
    FRAUD FACTS Issue 17 March 2014 (3rd edition) INFORMATION FOR ORGANISATIONS Fraud in Scotland Fraud does not respect boundaries. Fraudsters use the same tactics and deceptions, and cause the same harm throughout the UK. However, the way in which the crimes are defined, investigated and prosecuted can depend on whether the fraud took place in Scotland or England and Wales. Therefore it is important for Scottish and UK-wide businesses to understand the differences that exist. What is a ‘Scottish fraud’? Embezzlement Overview of enforcement Embezzlement is the felonious appropriation This factsheet focuses on criminal fraud. There are many interested parties involved in of property without the consent of the owner In Scotland criminal fraud is mainly dealt the detection, investigation and prosecution with under the common law and a number where the appropriation is by a person who of statutory offences. The main fraud offences has received a limited ownership of the of fraud in Scotland, including: in Scotland are: property, subject to restoration at a future • Police Service of Scotland time, or possession of property subject to • common law fraud liability to account for it to the owner. • Financial Conduct Authority • uttering There is an element of breach of trust in • Trading Standards • embezzlement embezzlement making it more serious than • Department for Work and Pensions • statutory frauds. simple theft. In most cases embezzlement involves the appropriation of money. • Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is important to note that the Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland (apart from Statutory frauds s10(1) which increases the maximum In addition there are a wide range of statutory Investigating fraud custodial sentence for fraudulent trading to offences which are closely related to the 10 years).
    [Show full text]
  • New Zealand1
    Abusive and Offensive Communications: the criminal law of New Zealand1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This paper details the myriad criminal laws New Zealand has in place to deal with abusive and offensive communication. These range from old laws, such as blasphemy and incitement, to recent laws enacted specifically to deal with online communications. It will be apparent that, unfortunately, New Zealand’s criminal laws now support different approaches to online and offline speech. SPECIFIC LIABILITY FOR ONLINE COMMUNICATION: THE HARMFUL DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT 2015 The statutory regime 1.2 The most recent government response to abusive and offensive speech is the Harmful Digital Communications Act, which was passed in 2015. The Act was a response to cyberbullying, and based on a report by the New Zealand Law Commission which found that one in ten New Zealand internet users have experienced harmful communications on the internet.2 It contains a criminal offence and a civil complaints regime administered by an approved agency, Netsafe. The Agency focusses on mediating the complaint and seeking voluntary take-down if appropriate, but has no powers to make orders. If the complaint cannot be resolved at this level, the complainant may take the matter to the District Court.3 Although the Act has both criminal and civil components, they are both described below in order to capture the comprehensiveness of the approach to online publication of harmful material. 1.3 The regime is based on a set of Digital Communication Principles, which are: Principle 1 A digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparing Tomorrow's Lawyers to Tackle Twenty-First Century Health and Social Justice Issues
    Denver Law Review Volume 95 Issue 3 Article 2 November 2020 Preparing Tomorrow's Lawyers to Tackle Twenty-First Century Health and Social Justice Issues Jennifer Rosen Valverde Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Jennifer Rosen Valverde, Preparing Tomorrow's Lawyers to Tackle Twenty-First Century Health and Social Justice Issues, 95 Denv. L. Rev. 539 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. PREPARING TOMORROW'S LAWYERS TO TACKLE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY HEALTH AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES JENNIFER ROSEN VALVERDEt ABSTRACT Changing times require changes to the ways in which lawyers, define, approach, and address complex problems. Legal education reform is needed to properly equip tomorrow's lawyers with the knowledge and skills necessary to address twenty-first century issues. This Article pro- poses that the legal academy foster the development of competencies in preventive law, interdisciplinary collaboration, and community engage- ment to prepare lawyers adequately for the practice of law. The Article offers one model for so doing-a law school-based medical-legal partner- ship clinic-and discusses the benefits, challenges, and lessons learned from the author's own experience teaching in such a program. However, the Article proposes that the clinic model is merely a starting point, and that law schools should integrate instruction in preventive law, interdisci- plinary collaboration, and community engagement throughout the curric- ulum in a carefully designed progression to achieve the curricular reform needed to properly prepare tomorrow's lawyers.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Criminal Law
    Syllabus Canadian Criminal Law (Revised November 2020) Candidates are advised that the syllabus may be updated from time-to-time without prior notice. Candidates are responsible for obtaining the most current syllabus available. World Exchange Plaza 1810 - 45 O'Connor Street Ottawa Ontario K1P 1A4 Tel: (613) 236-1700 Fax: (613) 236-7233 www.flsc.ca Canadian Criminal Law EXAMINATION The function of the NCA exams is to determine whether applicants demonstrate a passable facility in the examined subject area to enable them to engage competently in the practice of law in Canada. To pass the examination candidates are expected to identify the relevant issues, select and identify the material rules of law including those in the Criminal Code of Canada and the relevant case law as understood in Canada, and explain how the law applies on each of the relevant issues, given the facts presented. Those who fail to identify key issues, or who demonstrate confusion on core legal concepts, or who merely list the issues and describe legal rules or who simply assert conclusions without demonstrating how those legal rules apply given the facts of the case will not succeed, as those are the skills being examined. The knowledge, skills and abilities examined in NCA exams are basically those that a competent lawyer in practice in Canada would be expected to possess. MATERIALS Required: • Steve Coughlan, Criminal Procedure, 4th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2020) • Kent Roach, Criminal Law, 7th ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2018) • The most up-to-date Criminal Code (an annotated Criminal Code is highly recommended).
    [Show full text]
  • The Reform of the Crimes Act 1961
    9 The reform of the Crimes Act 1961 Rt Hon G W R Palmer* This month I introduced a new Crimes Bill into Parliament. The Bill contains the first comprehensive revision of our Criminal Code for approximately thirty years. The last such revision took place in 1961 following a gestation period of research and consultation which began in the early 1950s. Some people have asked why such a revision is necessary, given that the Crimes Act 1961 was a considerable advance on its predecessor, the consolidation of 1908. The simple answer is that the changes which have occurred in our society in the last thirty years are probably at least equivalent in significance to those which occurred between 1900 and 1961. We all feel the pace of change mid know that its increase is inexorable. Change has meant, for example, that our Crimes Act does not deal adequately with new forms of offending. Because we have chosen to codify all matters that give rise to criminal liability in New Zealand, it is essential that our code be as up-to-date as possible. This means that existing offences need to be revised and new offences created at reasonable intervals. Within the last thirty years there has also been a consistent increase in serious and violent crime. This trend is not as appalling as it is perceived to be by the general public. However, it does require some sort of response. Governments have a duty to move with the times. That duty may in fact be a difficult or unpleasant one to perform.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Common Charge Options for State Offences
    TABLE OF COMMON CHARGE OPTIONS FOR STATE OFFENCES A PRACTITIONERS’ GUIDE FOR THE EAGP SCHEME The Public Defenders Last updated 8 March 2019 Users’ guide, notes and acknowledgements The purpose of this document and a disclaimer • This document has been prepared as a resource designed to assist lawyers, whether defence or prosecution, involved in negotiations under the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea legislation. • You should always undertake your own research into the particular offences and provisions which may be relevant to any case you are working on. This document is a guide only and should be treated as a starting point for your consideration of appropriate offences. • Further and importantly, this document refers to the current versions of offences, maximum penalties and standard non-parole periods. You should always refer to the version of the legislation applicable at the time of any alleged offence. Because changes to sexual assault offences are so recent, we have included the most recently repealed offences for your convenience. • Please ensure you are working from the latest version of this document available from the Public Defenders’ website. The date of the most recent update is on the title page. • Please bear in mind that this document does not include any Commonwealth offences. Commonwealth offences might be alternatives to, for example, child pornography, grooming and procuring, money laundering, terrorism and drug offences. • Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the correctness of information in this Table, please be reminded of the Disclaimer pertaining to all information on the website of Public Defenders, Department of Justice NSW at: https://www.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/copyright-disclaimer.aspx Acknowledgments This Table has been prepared by the Public Defenders with assistance and input from Legal Aid NSW and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW, initially as part of the Early Appropriate Guilty Plea Working Party 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Consequences at Sentencing
    Update on Criminal Inadmissibility Peter Edelmann1 Division 4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) sets out the various grounds of inadmissibility along with a number of evidentiary and procedural matters. This paper will focus on the grounds of criminal inadmissibility set out in section 36. It will not address the related grounds of inadmissibility such as those under sections 34(security), 35 (international crimes) and 37 (organized criminality), each of which would provide ample material for a lengthy paper on their own. Section 36 sets out the grounds that render individuals inadmissible for criminality. The most fundamental distinction in s.36 is between criminality and serious criminality. Criminality, as described in s.36(2), only affects foreign nationals: A36 (2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for (a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence; (b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament; (c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; or (d) committing, on entering Canada, an offence under an Act of Parliament prescribed by regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Purpose and Conspiracy Liability in New Zealand: Criminality by Association?
    Common Purpose and Conspiracy Liability in New Zealand: Criminality by Association? Julia Tolmie and Kris Gledhill* Case law interpreting the common purpose aspect of party liability and the law on conspiracy in New Zealand (as set out in ss 66(2) and 310 of the Crimes Act 1961 (NZ)) has created a situation of over-reach. Individuals who have a limited relationship to criminality carried out by another or in a group context are potentially caught by extended liability rules that can lead to a poor association between the moral culpability of a defendant and serious criminal liability. Indeed, it is suggested that these forms of liability risk guilt by association rather than on the basis of individual positive fault: we suggest that New Zealand’s judges, following and sometimes expanding upon interpreta- tions from other common law jurisdictions, have lost sight of the core concept of individual fault. I INTRODUCTION A fundamental premise of the criminal law is that an individual’s liability (and resulting punishment) is based on their own individual action and personal fault: association with criminals is not itself criminal unless specified circumstances are met.1 This substantive rule is reinforced by rules of procedure and evidence that protect against guilt by association. A prime example is the caution in using hearsay evidence, things said outside the presence of the defendant. Having said this, there are offences based on joint liability and liability for participation in another’s offending. These recognise that group dynamics or support may elevate the risk and seriousness of the principal’s offending.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Capital Territory
    AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Imperial Acts Application Ordinance 1986 No. 93 of 1986 I, THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL of the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, hereby make the following Ordinance under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. Dated 18 December 1986. N. M. STEPHEN Governor-General By His Excellency’s Command, LIONEL BOWEN Attorney-General An Ordinance relating to the application in the Territory of certain Acts of the United Kingdom Short title 1. This Ordinance may be cited as the Imperial Acts Application Ordinance 1986.1 Commencement 2. (1) Subject to this section, this Ordinance shall come into operation on the date on which notice of this Ordinance having been made is published in the Gazette. (2) Sub-section 4 (2) shall come into operation on such date as is fixed by the Minister of State for Territories by notice in Gazette. (3) Sub-section 4 (3) shall come into operation on such date as is fixed by the Minister of State for Territories by notice in the Gazette. Authorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au Imperial Acts Application No. 93 , 1986 2 Interpretation 3. (1) In this Ordinance, unless the contrary intention appears—“applied Imperial Act” means— (a) an Imperial Act that— (i) extended to the Territory as part of the law of the Territory of its own force immediately before 3 September 1939; and (ii) had not ceased so to extend to the Territory before the commencing date; and (b) an Imperial Act, other than an Imperial
    [Show full text]
  • Project No 69
    THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Project No 69 The Criminal Process And Persons Suffering From Mental Disorder DISCUSSION PAPER FEBRUARY 1987 The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia was established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1972-1985. The Commissioners are - Mr P W Johnston, Chairman Mr C W Ogilvie Mr J R Packington Ms M E Rayner The officers are Executive Officer and Director of Research - Dr P R Handford Research Officers - Mr M G Boylson Mr R W Broertjes Mr A A Head PREFACE The Commission has been asked to consider and report on a number of aspects of the law relating to the criminal process and persons suffering from mental disorder. The Commission has not formed a final view on the issues raised in this discussion paper and welcomes the comments of those interested in the topic. It would help the Commission if views were supported by reasons. The Commission requests that comments be sent to it by 16 April 1987. Unless advised to the contrary, the Commission will assume that comments received are not confidential and that commentators agree to the Commission quoting from or referring to their comments, in whole or part, and to the comments being attributed to them. The Commission emphasises, however, that any desire for confidentiality or anonymity will be respected. The research material on which this paper is based can be studied at the Commission's office by anyone wishing to do so. Comments should be sent to - Dr P R Handford Executive Officer and Director of Research Law Reform Commission of Western Australia 16th Floor, St Martins Tower 44 St George's Terrace PERTH WA 6000 Telephone: (09) 325 6022 Contents Paragraph CHAPTER 1 - TERMS OF REFERENCE 1.1 CHAPTER 2 - INTRODUCTION 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Conspiracy and Attempts Consultation
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 183 CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPTS A Consultation Paper The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Etherton, Chairman Mr Stuart Bridge Mr David Hertzell Professor Jeremy Horder Kenneth Parker QC Professor Martin Partington CBE is Special Consultant to the Law Commission responsible for housing law reform. The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Steve Humphreys and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This consultation paper, completed on 17 September 2007, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on its proposals before 31 January 2008. Comments may be sent either – By post to: David Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WC1N 2BQ Tel: 020-7453-1212 Fax: 020-7453-1297 By email to: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments sent by post could also be sent on disk, or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. We will treat all responses as public documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and we will include a list of all respondents' names in any final report we publish. Those who wish to submit a confidential response should contact the Commission before sending the response. We will disregard automatic confidentiality disclaimers generated by an IT system.
    [Show full text]