DOCSLIB.ORG

Shadow Report International Covenant on Civil and Political

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shadow Report International Covenant on Civil and Political NEW SOUTH WALES COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES www.nswccl.org.au Shadow Report prepared for the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the occasion of its review of Australia’s Fifth Periodic Report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR Date submitted: 28 November 2008 Australia: ICCPR Shadow Report of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties About the NSW Council for Civil Liberties The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties (‘CCL’) is committed to protecting and promoting civil liberties and human rights in Australia. CCL is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, by resolution 2006/221 (21 July 2006). CCL was established in 1963 and is one of Australia’s leading human rights and civil liberties organisations. Our aim is to secure the equal rights of everyone in Australia and oppose any abuse or excessive power by the State against its people. To this end CCL attempts to influence public debate and government policy on a range of human rights issues. We try to secure amendments to laws, or changes in policy, where civil liberties and human rights are not fully respected. We also listen to individual complaints and, through volunteer efforts, attempt to help members of the public with civil liberties problems. We prepare submissions to government, conduct court cases defending infringements of civil liberties, engage regularly in public debates, produce publications, and conduct many other activities. Abbreviations 2OP Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aiming at the abolition of the death penalty ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation ACM Australasian Correctional Management ACT Australian Capital Territory AFP Australian Federal Police ASIO Australian Security Intelligence Organisation ASIS Australian Security Intelligence Service BVE Bridging Visa E (subclass 051) CAT Convention Against Torture & other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CCL NSW Council for Civil Liberties CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women CPA Coalition Provisional Authority (in Iraq) CROC UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Cth Commonwealth of Australia DIMIA Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs FCA Federal Court of Australia FOI Freedom of Information HREOC Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission HRMU High Risk Management Unit (at Goulburn Correctional Centre, NSW) ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross INP Indonesian National Police LRC Legislative Review Committee (of the New South Wales Parliament) NSW New South Wales RDA Racial Discrimination Act 1995 (Cth) RHC Residential Housing Centres RRT Refugee Review Tribunal RSL Returned & Services League UNHRC United Nations Human Rights Committee UN United Nations US United States of America Page 2 28 November 2008 Australia: ICCPR Shadow Report of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 5 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 7 3. ARTICLE 2: JURISDICTION, EFFECT AND REMEDY ........................................................ 9 3.1 EXTRATERRITORIALITY: 2(1) ......................................................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Australian Federal Police and the death penalty ............................................................. 10 3.2 FAILURE TO ADOPT AND GIVE EFFECT TO ICCPR: 2(2) ............................................................... 11 3.3 LACK OF EFFECTIVE REMEDIES: 2(3) ........................................................................................... 12 4. ARTICLE 6: RIGHT TO LIFE ................................................................................................... 14 4.1 EUTHANASIA ................................................................................................................................ 14 4.2 DEATH PENALTY ........................................................................................................................... 14 5. ARTICLE 7: TORTURE .............................................................................................................. 15 5.1 THE “WAR ON TERROR” ............................................................................................................... 15 5.1.1 acquiescence and failure to investigate torture ................................................................ 15 5.1.2 torture of Australian citizens abroad ................................................................................ 16 5.1.2.1 Mamdouh Habib .......................................................................................................................... 16 5.1.2.2 David Hicks ................................................................................................................................. 19 5.1.3 no compensation for victims of torture ............................................................................. 20 5.1.4 Australian support for Guantanamo Bay .......................................................................... 20 5.1.5 Australian indifference to abuse at Abu Ghraib ............................................................... 20 5.2 REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS OF TORTURE .................................................................................. 22 5.2.1 children .............................................................................................................................. 22 5.2.2 victims on bridging visas ................................................................................................... 23 5.3 DOMESTIC PRISONS ..................................................................................................................... 23 5.3.1 indigenous over-representation ........................................................................................ 23 5.4 SUPERMAXIMUM PRISONS ............................................................................................................ 25 5.4.1 background ........................................................................................................................ 25 5.4.2 ‘the worst of the worst’: placement in the HRMU as retribution .................................... 26 5.4.3 segregation ........................................................................................................................ 27 5.4.4 the mental health of HRMU inmates generally ................................................................ 28 5.4.5 placement of the mentally ill in the HRMU ...................................................................... 29 5.4.6 conditions ........................................................................................................................... 32 5.4.7 no right of review of placement in the HRMU .................................................................. 33 5.4.8 political interference ......................................................................................................... 33 5.4.9 other supermax prisons in Australia ................................................................................. 35 6. ARTICLE 9: ARBITRARY ARREST OR DETENTION ........................................................ 36 6.1 MANDATORY IMMIGRATION DETENTION ...................................................................................... 36 6.1.1 immigration detention: cruel, inhuman and degrading.................................................... 36 6.1.2 general conditions in immigration detention centres ....................................................... 38 6.1.3 mental health crisis in immigration detention centres ..................................................... 39 6.1.4 children in detention .......................................................................................................... 41 6.1.5 length of detention ............................................................................................................. 44 6.1.5.1 generally....................................................................................................................................... 44 6.1.5.2 statelessness and indefinite detention .......................................................................................... 45 6.1.6 privatisation of immigration detention centres ................................................................. 46 6.2 PREVENTATIVE DETENTION AND TERRORISM .............................................................................. 47 6.3 ASIO DETENTION ......................................................................................................................... 48 6.4 BAIL LAWS .................................................................................................................................... 49 7. ARTICLE 10: TREATMENT IN DETENTION ....................................................................... 51 7.1 JUVENILES .................................................................................................................................... 51 7.2 TREATMENT OF TERRORIST SUSPECTS .........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Off with Their Heads: Terrorism and Electoral Support for Capital Punishment in Australia*
    27 May 2004 Off with their heads: Terrorism and electoral support for capital punishment in Australia* Sinclair Davidsona, Lisa Farrellb, Clare Felvusa and Tim R. L. Frya a School of Economics and Finance Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology GPO Box 2476V Melbourne, Victoria 3001 b Department of Economics The University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia Abstract: Terrorist attacks such as the attacks on the World Trade Centre in September 2001 have generated new interest in the debate on capital punishment. It has been suggested that support for the death penalty could be higher in the wake of terrorist activity. Using data from the Australian Election Study we investigate voters’ attitudes towards capital punishment. Paradoxically, overall support for the death penalty at the 2001 Federal election was lower than at previous elections. In this paper we utilise a treatment effects models to model the determinants of those attitudes and to investigate the impact of terrorism on support for the death penalty at the 2001 Federal election. In particular, we address the question of whether voters who felt terrorism was an important issue had higher levels of support for the death penalty than voters who did not feel that terrorism was important. J.E.L. Classification: D72, C35 __________ * The research in this paper was supported by Australian Research Council grant DP0449846: “Economic reform and Australian electoral decision making”. The data used is from the Australian Election Study. We wish to state that those who carried out the original analysis and collection of the data bear no responsibility for our analysis or interpretation of the data.
    [Show full text]
  • Aims of the Criminal Justice System by Kathleen Daly
    Aims of the Criminal Justice System by Kathleen Daly Professor Kathleen Daly School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland AUSTRALIA of: +61 07 3735-5625 email: [email protected] Chapter 17 forthcoming in Marinella Marmo, Willem de Lint, and Darren Palmer (eds.) (2012) Crime and Justice: A Guide to Criminology (4th edition). Sydney: Lawbook Co. (Order of second and third editors is subject to change.) Note: there may be slight additions or emendations as the chapter moves through the editorial process. This chapter updates and revises Chapter 13, which was published in Crime and Justice: A Guide to Criminology (3rd edition, 2006) edited by Andrew Goldsmith, Mark Israel, and Kathleen Daly. 22 April 2011 1 CHAPTER 17 AIMS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Kathleen Daly, Griffith University KEY WORDS • discretion • retributive and utilitarian punishment • Crime Control and Due Process Models • processual and dispositive decisions • indeterminate sentencing • desert-based and individualised sentencing Key Words • Introduction THE PRACTICAL AND SYMBOLIC SIGNIFICANCE OF DOING JUSTICE THE CONTROVERSIAL CHARACTER OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM System or Collection of Agencies? Justice or Injustice? Criminal? THE FLOW OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS THE ROLE OF ORDINARY CITIZENS MODELS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS Crime Control and Due Process Participant and Analytical Models Medical Model Bureaucratic Model Status Degradation and Status Passage Model Power Model CRIMINAL PROCESS AS FUNNEL PUNISHMENT: VALUES, THEORIES,
    [Show full text]
  • Judge for Yourself: a Guide to Sentencing in Australia
    Judge for yourself A Guide to Sentencing in Australia PUBLISHED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF AUSTRALIA 2 Contents About this booklet Public perception of crime 3 The sentencing options 22 This booklet is published by the Judicial Conference of Australia as a free resource to members of the public who wish to gain a better Our brutal past 4 Appeals against sentencing 23 understanding of the system of sentencing offenders in Australia. The facts behind sentencing 5 Sentencing and news media 24 The JCA is the national representative body for Australian judicial Who’s who of sentencing 6 Criticisms of sentencing 25 officers. It has a membership of some 600 judges and magistrates, and is a non-profit organisation largely funded by its members. Crucial role of parliaments 7 The soft on crime perception 26 A number of courts, government departments and other organisations Australia’s court system 8 A case in point 27 in each state have very kindly provided photographs for use in this booklet. They are acknowledged in the captions below each image. The judiciary 9 Apparent inconsistencies 28 This publication was made possible by generous grants from the Executive branch of government 10 Picture: Defendant in the dock 29 Victoria Law Foundation, the Sentencing Advisory Council of Victoria, the Judicial Commission of NSW, the Law Foundation of South Australia How sentences are served 11 Prison rates / specialist courts 30 and the Law Society Public Purposes Trust of Western Australia. Parole Boards 12 Specialist courts (cont.) 31 The JCA is extremely grateful for the assistance provided by these How sentences happen 13 Qld drug court in session 32 organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • Judge for Yourself a Guide to Sentencing in Australia
    Judge for yourself A Guide to Sentencing in Australia PUBLISHED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF AUSTRALIA 2 Contents About this booklet Public perception of crime 3 The sentencing options 22 This booklet is published by the Judicial Conference of Australia as a free resource to members of the public who wish to gain a better Our brutal past 4 Appeals against sentencing 23 understanding of the system of sentencing offenders in Australia. The facts behind sentencing 5 Sentencing and news media 24 The JCA is the national representative body for Australian judicial Who’s who of sentencing 6 Criticisms of sentencing 25 officers. It has a membership of some 600 judges and magistrates, and is a non-profit organisation largely funded by its members. Crucial role of parliaments 7 The soft on crime perception 26 A number of courts, government departments and other organisations Australia’s court system 8 A case in point 27 in each state have very kindly provided photographs for use in this booklet. They are acknowledged in the captions below each image. The judiciary 9 Apparent inconsistencies 28 This publication was made possible by generous grants from the Executive branch of government 10 Picture: Defendant in the dock 29 Victoria Law Foundation, the Sentencing Advisory Council of Victoria, the Judicial Commission of NSW, the Law Foundation of South Australia How sentences are served 11 Prison rates / specialist courts 30 and the Law Society Public Purposes Trust of Western Australia. Parole Boards 12 Specialist courts (cont.) 31 The JCA is extremely grateful for the assistance provided by these How sentences happen 13 Qld drug court in session 32 organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty: an Abolitionist Perspective
    DEATH PENALTY: AN ABOLITIONIST PERSPECTIVE Roland Rich 1. Introduction What do the following people have in common? Socrates, Spartacus, Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, Danton, Robespierre, John Brown, Sacco and Vanzetti, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Ken Saro-Wiwa. 1 They were all executed. The first on the list, in the time of the Greeks and the last, a couple of years ago. The list is testimony to the enduring recourse to the death penalty over human history. There is some evidence that cavemen practised capital punishment 2 and its existence can certainly be found in the Bible and in the lex talionis of the Code of Hammurabi in 1750 BC.3 But the antiquity of an institution is not a justification for recourse to the death penalty in modern times. Otherwise we might still be practising other forms of community sanctioned murder such as ceremonial human sacrifice and cannibalism. This paper will argue in favour of the abolition of capital punishment and will attempt to do so from a legal and human rights perspective. Issues of ethics and natural justice will also arise. The superpower of capital punishment is undoubtedly China with a reported 1,876 executions in 1997. 4 But on a per capita basis, Iran (143) and Saudi Arabia (122) would match China.5 These countries are influenced by chari’a law, a subject I will touch on later. The United States comes next in line with 74 executions in 19976. By examining the Chinese and American situations we are able to look at the salient aspects of the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Hard Copy Library At
    RESTORATIVE JUSTICE INDEX of MATERIALS BELONGING TO FWM MCELREA HELD AT VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON RESTORATIVE JUSTICE CENTRE JUDGE FWM MCELREA V O L U M E 1 1 Seminar notes - 1992, Advanced Criminal Law Class. 2 Typed transcript of that Seminar 3 Legal Research Foundation - Order Form : "The Youth Court in New Zealand" 1993 and copy of FWM McElrea paper therein. 4 1993 New Zealand Law Conference : Speech Notes 5 Transcript of New Zealand Law Conference Session 6 Article " The place of negotiated settlement with adult offenders" - from New Zealand Law Conference newspaper. 7 Notes for Advanced Criminal Law Session - 29 March 1993 8 Letter from Cambridge for Te Rangatahi 9 Notes for Guest Seminar 20 October 1993, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge 10 The Intent of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 - Restorative Justice? Paper for Youth Justice Conference, 25 February 1994 11 Restorative Justice - The New Zealand Youth Court: A Model for Development in other Courts? Paper for National Conference of District Court Judges, 6-9 April 1994. 12 "By Their Fruits - A future for Restorative Justice" - National District Court Judges' Conference, Rotorua - 6 April 1994 (Rev. Jim Consedine) 13 Comments at Restorative Justice Session, Rotorua 14 "The Role of the Judge" - Seminar in Criminal Law and Policy, 30 May 1994 15 Community Group Conference Report of Douglas Mansill, 3 June 1994. 16 Letter from Douglas Mansill - 30 June 1994, re Community Group Conference system. 17 "Stimulus" - May 1994 issue with Hakiaha article on decision making, and conference preview. 18 Material re Zehr/Justice Department meeting, Wellington 21 June 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2019 John Barry Memorial Lecture
    Faculty of Arts School of Social and Justice Maxwell commenced practice at the Bar in Political Sciences . He was appointed Queens Counsel in . Justice Maxwell was appointed President of the Court of Appeal in July . In he was made 2019 a Companion of the Order of Australia in the The John Barry Memorial Lecture Queens Birthday Honours. With the support of the Barry family, the Criminology discipline within the School of Social and Political Sciences presents the 4st John Barry Memorial Lecture. Justice Maxwell graduated from the niversity of Melbourne with a Bachelor of Arts Honours in and a Bachelor of Laws in . Photo Credit David Johns and Presented by Justice Chris Maxwell the May LIJ Vol. issue President Victorian Court of Appeal Tuesday October .pm .pm 1972 Professor Geoffrey Sawyer 1996 Professors Rebecca Dobash and Russell Dobash Kathleen Fitzpatrick Theatre Arts West 1973 Professor Noval R Morris 1998 Professor Michael Tonry 1974 The Hon Justice Roma Mitchell 2000 Professor Hans-Jurgen Kerner 1975 Mr Ray W Witrod 2001 Professor Paul Wiles 1976 Professor Sam B Hammond 2002 Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon 1979 The Hon Justice Michael D Kirby 2003 The Hon. Alistair Nicholson AO RFD 1980 Professor Simon Dinitz 2004 Mr Mick Keelty APM will give a Welcome to Country. 1981 Mr William Clifford 2005 The Hon. Fred Chaney 1982 Professor Richard W Harding 2006 Professor Ian Loader Head of Criminology School of Social and Political Sciences . 1983 Mr Francis X Costigan QC 2008 Professor Chris Cunneen will welcome guests and speak about the life and achievements of J.
    [Show full text]
  • Euthanasia and Capital Punishment in Australia: Consistency Or Contradiction?
    Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics Volume 6 Issue 1 Bioethics: Multidisciplinary Article 6 Perspectives on Euthanasia 2016 “Such is Life”: Euthanasia and capital punishment in Australia: consistency or contradiction? Michael Quinlan [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/solidarity ISSN: 1839-0366 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Copyright Regulations 1969 WARNING This material has been copied and communicated to you by or on behalf of the University of Notre Dame Australia pursuant to part VB of the Copyright Act 1969 (the Act). The material in this communication may be subject to copyright under the Act. Any further copying or communication of this material by you may be the subject of copyright protection under the Act. Do not remove this notice. Recommended Citation Quinlan, Michael (2016) "“Such is Life”: Euthanasia and capital punishment in Australia: consistency or contradiction?," Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics: Vol. 6 : Iss. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://researchonline.nd.edu.au/solidarity/vol6/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you by ResearchOnline@ND. It has been accepted for inclusion in Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics by an authorized administrator of ResearchOnline@ND. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “Such is Life”: Euthanasia and capital punishment in Australia: consistency or contradiction? Abstract Lawful euthanasia involves State endorsed termination of human life. Apart from a period of less than 9 months, in the Northern Territory, euthanasia has been illegal in Australia. Many of Australia’s parliaments have regularly considered introducing the practice and they continue to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment in the United States and Beyond
    — CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND BEYOND PAUL MARCUS∗ [This article explores the controversial topic of capital punishment, with a particular focus on its longstanding application in the United States. The use of the death penalty in the US has been the subject of much criticism both domestically and internationally. The numerous concerns addressed in this article relate to the morality of the punishment, its effectiveness, the uneven application of the penalty, and procedural problems. The US Supreme Court has confirmed the constitutionality of capital punishment while striking down particular uses of the death penalty. The US is not, however, alone in executing convicted defendants. Capital punishment is still being used by other jurisdic- tions, some with more prevalent use than the US, such as the People’s Republic of China and Singapore. However, as more nations abolish the death penalty, the question remains, why is capital punishment so widespread in the world?] CONTENTS I Introduction............................................................................................................. 838 II Judicial Rulings on the Death Penalty .................................................................... 840 III Legislative Response.............................................................................................. 842 IV The Current Situation ............................................................................................. 843 V Attitudes towards Capital Punishment...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Problems with the South Australian Indefinite Detention Regime
    “KEEP HIM IN JAIL”:1 PROBLEMS WITH THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN INDEFINITE DETENTION REGIME By Eva Squire University of Adelaide 1 Nigel Hunt, “KEEP HIM IN JAIL”, The Advertiser (Adelaide, 28 May 2018), 1. This was the frontpage headline of The Advertiser on 28 May 2018. It referred to the impending release of convicted paedophile Colin Humphrys, who had been detained under an indefinite detention order. A day after the headline appeared, the government introduced an amendment bill to prevent the release. I INTRODUCTION This essay examines the indefinite detention regime in Part 3, Division 5 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) (‘Sentencing Act’). In particular, it focuses on the effects of the amendments made by the Sentencing (Release on Licence) Act 2018 (SA) (‘Amending Act’). I argue that the indefinite detention scheme is a departure from the traditional role of the judiciary in a criminal justice system. Firstly, this essay canvasses the scope of the judicial power to detain and the problems posed by indefinite detention regimes. Secondly, the essay traces the development of the current scheme in South Australia and reveals a judicial reluctance to make indefinite detention orders as a result of the changes made by the Amending Act. The final section of this essay engages with the reasoning behind this reluctance and examines four key issues in the current scheme. The amendments to the indefinite detention regime in South Australia have created a system that is irreconcilable with role of the court in a criminal justice system. II THE JUDICIAL POWER TO DETAIN A Scope of the Power Imprisonment is the harshest form of punishment in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Prof M Bagaric
    THREE THINGS THAT A BASELINE STUDY SHOWS DON’T CAUSE INDIGENOUS OVER-IMPRISONMENT; THREE THINGS THAT MIGHT BUT SHOULDN’T AND THREE REFORMS THAT WILL REDUCE INDIGENOUS OVER-IMPRISONMENT Abstract: Indigenous offenders are grossly over-represented in Australian prisons. It is a problem that has persisted for many years and in fact has worsened over the past few decades. Few pragmatic reforms to the sentencing system have been suggested or implemented. To some extent, this is because the reasons for the problem are not clear. Previous controlled studies analysing the reasons for the high rate of Indigenous incarceration have reached different conclusions regarding the reasons for sentencing disparity in this area. I argue that this is because the studies have not used standardised variables and, moreover, the number and types of controls that have been used are not suitable. In light of this, it is illuminating to interrogate the raw data. This article sets out the findings of a wide-ranging baseline study regarding the impact of Indigeneity in sentencing determinations. Baseline studies are often criticised because they are too crude. However, in a discipline such as sentencing where there are too many variables to accurately control, I suggest that the baseline study in this paper is revealing. The study uses the most current data available and has a considerably larger sample size than other studies. The results of the analysis suggest that the key point in the sentencing calculus, where Indigenous offenders are disadvantaged comparative to other offenders, is the decision whether or not to impose a term of imprisonment.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Death Penalty Legal in Australia
    Is The Death Penalty Legal In Australia Pockiest Shaun modulating imperially. Browless Kincaid kibitz some poke after unlaced Averill crenellates tipsily. Monopetalous Bruce waylays conceptually while Dugan always jab his racquet formalized reticulately, he entrapped so excellently. Section D Death penalty for children ICRC databases on. Texas could no adequate legal costs more seriously as i are allowed the charges which australia is the death legal penalty in the dead and individualised training. CPJP Standing for a world bank the best penalty. These legal penalty and death penalties for an australian and his greatest achievement in. Australian exceptionalism The Bali nine and the future although the. There is australia. THE VICTORIAN BAR soap BAR ASSOCIATION LAUNCH OF REPRIEVE AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE 17 MAY 2001 THE DEATH up A SPECIAL. Did not move had fired by death is legal position to legalize, were less attention to support putting in a minimum possible suffering. He is death penalty was shot and confessed to legalize, an essential network posts should look into custody and killed helen josephine kerz at old cases. Nearly one quarter of inmates on now row up the US die premature natural causes while awaiting execution. Five reasons to steam the attack penalty Amnesty. Some legal penalty is australia was spared at sydney gaol for long periods of sentence may have been working to be that no saved because it is. Australia has fortified its position on the margin penalty and recent years. Part 4 briefly discusses the death blossom in Australian law and Australia's international obligations in relation to promote death valley Part 5 considers some limit the.
    [Show full text]