home | news l

'Apartheid' law under fire in NT

By Debra Jopson

7 June 2001 - A new Northern Territory law under which people can be fined $2,000 or jailed for six months for "anti-social behaviour" has been branded stupid and an imitation of a law from South Africa's apartheid era.

The Public Order and Anti-Social Conduct Bill to be introduced into Parliament today allows police to ban people for 24 hours from a "notified place" on grounds that their presence or behaviour is causing a "reasonable person ... anxiety, harassment, alarm or distress".

But the head of the Territory Law Society, Mr Jon Tippett, said it would give powers that were unprecedented in Australia and was targeted at Aborigines.

Mr Tippett, who branded the law "stupid" and "cobbled-together", said it would not work, would scoop up Aborigines disproportionately in its net, and put all sorts of people at risk when they were in a "notified place".

But in a lengthy statement on law and order in the Territory Parliament this week, the Chief Minister, Mr Denis Burke, defended the controversial mandatory sentencing regime as one of his Government's "most significant initiatives" and said that despite criticism it would also introduce new "tough measures" to prevent crime.

"They will allow the police proper scope for dealing with anti-social behaviour in both public and private places and, where necessary, to confiscate property that is contributing to that conduct," he said.

Many attempts had been made to find a solution to the anti-social behaviour of the "itinerants or long-grassers" in urban areas and the new law was an attempt to deal with "some of the intrusive activities we see in our streets and parks," said Mr Burke, whose Government faces an election this year.

"We are not being racist when we suggest that many of our urban problems might not be there if some of these people went home."

However, Mr Tippett said the law was clearly aimed at beggars, who were often Aborigines who had "fallen by the wayside" because they were ill, poorly educated, disabled or alcoholic.

Under the new law, the mere presence of a person could amount to anti-social behaviour and any place could be declared a notified area following an application to a member of the police force, local government or a minister, he said.

Signs would be erected in notified areas so people were "reasonably notified", but many members of the "beggar class" could not read.

Territory rocked by chief judge's secret legal advice

By Chips Mackinolty in Darwin

7 June 2001 - A letter from the Northern Territory Chief Justice proffering "private legal opinions" to Mr Shane Stone would shatter public confidence in the Territory's justice system, a former supreme court judge said yesterday.

Mr Michael Maurice, QC, said the issue had brought "the whole court system in the Northern Territory into disrepute".

Excerpts from the February 1998 letter to the former Northern Territory attorney-general and current Liberal Party national president were disclosed at a Darwin Supreme Court hearing yesterday.

They reveal that Chief Justice Brian Martin advised Mr Stone on the constitutionality of appointing chief magistrate Mr Hugh Bradley to a limited, two-year tenure in office.

The nature of the appointment is at the core of a trial into whether Mr Bradley was appointed for an "improper purpose".

Mr Arthur Moses, appearing for the North Australian Legal Aid Service, which is challenging the Bradley appointment, told the court that four current or former judges and the Chief Justice may be called to give evidence.

The existence of the letter was revealed at a directions hearing concerning the trial before Justice Howard Olney.

The legal aid service yesterday challenged Justice Olney's capacity to conduct the trial due to difficulties he would have in assessing the credibility of judges who might appear before him. In an unusual move, Justice Olney declined to rule himself in or out of hearing the trial, but ruled the trial be "cross-vested" to be heard by the Federal Court.

The 1998 letter reveals that Chief Justice Martin was aware of critical details of Mr Stone's secret deal with Mr Bradley.

Other correspondence revealed in court suggests his fellow Supreme Court judges were ignorant of that prior knowledge.

In March 1999, Chief Justice Martin signed a request on behalf of all resident judges to Mr Bradley calling him to "make full disclosure" about the details of his appointment.

Mr Maurice said yesterday that public confidence in the judiciary would be "shattered".

"It raises serious questions which must be answered, and answered very quickly, by the Chief Justice.

"It raises serious questions about his judgment and unfortunately his integrity. In having written the letter in the first place, it appears that he hasn't disclosed this letter to his brother judges or to anybody else."

Mr Maurice said he understood that the existence of the letter, crucial to the trial involving the validity of Mr Bradley's appointment, had not been revealed during the normal processes of judicial discovery.

Legal commentator Richard Ackland said the letter was "very curious".

"It is quite proper for an attorney-general to seek advice about the suitability of a person for appointment to the Bench, but this advice seems to have gone beyond that. It is discussing the nature and terms of condition of appointment and advising as to the constitutionality of that."

Mr Ackland said the letter compromised the court and the Chief Justice.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

Further information: law and justice issues page - includes news index and external links

|| click to go to the top of this page