NSWCCL News

Porter should face inquiry - NSWCCL President

Media Coverage: Australian Financial Review

Ms Wright said the “fact that a criminal prosecution is not proceeding does not mean that the matter is settled in the minds of the public”.

“There is nothing novel about independent inquiries being called to look into allegations even where the conduct alleged amounts to criminal behaviour.

“There is no breach of the rule of law if such an inquiry is conducted fairly in accordance with principles of natural justice or procedural fairness.”

Ms Wright said that if the allegations were true,“it  would cast serious doubt on the integrity of the Attorney General and his fitness to be a Minister.

“For that reason, the PM should call an independent inquiry ensuring that procedural fairness is followed, ensuring the AG knows the case he has to answer and is given the opportunity to respond and clear his name.”

Read more

Share

NSWCCL President 'Porter to be 'in shadow' until inquiry is held'

Media coverage: Sky News Australia

NSW Council for Civil Liberties President Pauline Wright says an inquiry into Christian Porter is necessary because until it is conducted his character and innocence will be in doubt.

Mr Porter yesterday declared historical rape allegations laid against him were false, stating he would not be stepping down from his position as attorney-general because it would set a precedent which could see anyone removed from a position simply by an allegation.

Asked whether he was right in making the point about bowing to pressure over allegations, Ms Wright said his comments proved the need for an inquiry. “Because unfortunately … unless and until an inquiry is held there will be a shadow over the attorney general and over this government,” she told Sky News.

“For a start he is the attorney general of Australia, he is the first law officer, he has got to be above reproach, ministers are held to higher account than others in the community.

“And again the prime minister’s ministerial standard require that conduct of his ministers must both in fact and in appearance comply with the standards.

“And their private conduct in a private capacity has to demonstrate those high standards of personal integrity.”

Read more

Share

Opinion: Without an inquiry, doubt will persist

Media coverage: The Guardian

New South Wales police have decided to close their investigation into the rape allegation against the attorney general, Christian Porter, an allegation which he has emphatically denied. It is now vital the prime minister institute an independent inquiry to transparently consider the allegation, and the circumstances surrounding the death of the woman who alleged she was raped 30 years ago, as a 16-year-old. The proper governance of the nation demands it. Without an independent inquiry there remains a shadow over the Morrison government and attorney general.

The NSW police reportedly closed the case because there was insufficient admissible evidence. In a criminal case, police must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt - a high bar indeed when the key witness is now deceased and unable to give a first-hand account.

But a criminal prosecution is not the only way to test the truth of an allegation. A fair and independent inquiry would provide Porter with the opportunity to clear his name. An inquiry would consider all available evidence, including that of the attorney general, if he chose to participate, statements made by the complainant, evidence of contemporaneous complaint, diary entries, all of which can be tested through a fair process.

Without an inquiry, the shadow of doubt will persist within the Australian public as to whether Porter is a fit and proper person to retain his role as Australia’s first law officer.

Read more

Share

President calls for independent inquiry, Cabinet Minister rape allegations

Media Coverage: The New Daily

Pressure is mounting on the cabinet minister at the centre of a historic rape allegation to step down and for a judicial inquiry into the claims.

The accused minister, who emphatically denies all allegations, is expected to make a public statement on Wednesday and repeated his staunch denial of the brutal assault.

Pressure is building on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to establish a judicial inquiry into claims the man raped a 16-year-old girl in 1988. The woman at the centre of the accusations died in 2020.

Lawyer Michael Bradley, who represented the woman, said it was no longer a criminal matter.

“We have a senior cabinet minister who’s been accused of a grave crime and that calls into question his integrity and, at the moment, the integrity of the whole cabinet,” he told the Seven Network on Wednesday.

Mr Bradley believes the minister should step down while an independent inquiry looks at the allegation.

NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Pauline Wright said independent inquiries were routinely conducted in government and corporate settings.

She said any investigation would need to ensure the minister received a fair hearing.

“The Australian people deserve to have it got to the bottom of. There needs to be some kind of investigation into this,” Ms Wright told ABC radio.

Read more

Share

NSWCCL President on PM's rape claim response

Media coverage: 7News

'Senior lawyers have schooled the prime minister on his understanding of Australia's criminal justice system as they urge him to launch an independent investigation into rape allegations against a senior minister...

The NSWCCL's president Pauline Wright says passing the issue to the federal police is "nothing short of an abrogation" of Mr Morrison's responsibility for the proper governance of Australia.

"It is the prime minister, not the commissioner of the AFP, who is ultimately bound to consider whether the person is fit to serve in cabinet," she said on Tuesday.

"While the police investigation and criminal process should run its course, the prime minister should be considering as a matter of priority, and irrespective of any criminal process, the institution of an independent investigation into the complaint."

The council says Mr Morrison should follow the approach taken by the High Court and launch an independent inquiry.

Former High Court justice Dyson Heydon was last year found by the court's own independent inquiry to have sexually harassed six young female associates.

Ms Wright says independent investigations are a routine part of corporate and government department procedure for staff facing allegations of sexual harassment or bullying.

"Internal arms' length investigations are commonly undertaken in workplaces either in a parallel process if police charges are pursued, or as an alternative if police charges are not pursued," the former Law Council president said.'

Read more

Share

Prime Minister abrogates his responsibility to look into the allegations of historical rape

2 March 2021

PUBLIC STATEMENT

Prime Minister abrogates his responsibility to look into the allegations of historical rape

In response to questions at a press conference yesterday about allegations made by a woman that she was raped in 1988 by a man who is now a Cabinet Minister, the Prime Minister stated that he had reported the matter to the Australian Federal Police and that the Commissioner had indicated that there was “nothing immediate” in terms of necessary actions that he considered the PM should be taking. The Prime Minister said that he was awaiting the advice of the Commissioner on the status of “other jurisdictions” that could be potentially involved when the Commissioner was “in a position to do so”.

Presumably the “other jurisdictions” refer to police in the State or Territory in which the rape is alleged to have occurred. The Australian Federal Police would not have jurisdiction unless the crime were alleged to have occurred in the ACT or the Northern Territory.

This deferral to the authority of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police by the Prime Minister of Australia is nothing short of an abrogation of his responsibility for the proper governance of the nation. It is the Prime Minister, not the Commissioner of the AFP, who is ultimately bound to consider whether the person is fit to serve in Cabinet.

Reporting this complaint of criminal conduct to the police was certainly appropriate in the circumstances, but it is not a complete discharge by the Prime Minister of his responsibility with respect to the information he has received, particularly under circumstances where the complainant is now deceased and would not be available to give oral evidence in a criminal trial. There are other responses that are available to the Prime Minister that should be considered quite separately from the police investigation.

The Prime Minister’s assertion that “it is the police in a country where you are governed by the rule of law that determine the veracity of any allegations of this nature” is quite mistaken in two respects.

First, the role of the police, when put on notice of a possible criminal offences, is to investigate and gather evidence and decide whether or not to pursue a prosecution based on a number of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the possible offence and the likelihood of a conviction based on the evidence to hand. It does not involve a determination by the police as to whether ‘allegations’ are true or false. Indeed, there are cases where the police are satisfied that the matter should be prosecuted and where there are no allegations at all, such as where sufficient evidence has come to notice without a complaint or allegation of any kind having been made by anyone.

Secondly, there is an implication in the Prime Minister’s assertion that the police have the exclusive function of determining the truth or falsity of the allegations which have been made in a complaint. This is patently wrong. Under our criminal justice system, it is the courts, and not the police, that have the function of making all necessary findings of fact if the matter goes to trial. It is fundamental to the rule of law that a person should not be subject to punishment by the State, whether by fine or imprisonment or otherwise, without determination of guilt in a court of law, and that finding must be beyond a reasonable doubt. More particularly, it is wrong to assert by implication that no other person or agency has the role or the function or the duty to determine whether a serious criminal offence has been committed.

Independent investigations are routinely carried out within corporations and government departments, for instance when allegations of sexual harassment or bullying are made. Internal arms’ length investigations are commonly undertaken in workplaces either in a parallel process if police charges are pursued, or as an alternative if police charges are not pursued. Similarly, where a complaint is made against a professional, and if it would tend to bring the profession into disrepute if proven, or otherwise reflects upon that person’s professional conduct, it may be investigated by the person’s professional association and potentially taken to court to determine whether they continue to be a fit and proper person to hold their position within the profession.

One recent example of the commissioning of an independent investigation was the process adopted by the High Court of Australia regarding the complaints of inappropriate conduct made against former Justice Dyson Heydon. The Chief Justice Susan Kiefel AC made a public statement upon the conclusion of that investigation about the complainants that:

“Their accounts of their experiences at the time have been believed.”

“We’re ashamed that this could have happened …”

Where a complaint is pursued through a workplace or professional complaints process, the truth or otherwise of the allegation will be determined through the independent complaints mechanism by the investigator, as occurred in the High Court example. The same would be the case if the Prime Minister were to instigate an independent investigation into this allegation of historical rape.

The Prime Minister also asserted yesterday that he and his office “do not have the people or others who are trained or competent or authorised to investigate matters of this nature”. Yet he has at his disposal all of the resources of his office as the first minister of Australia, including the power to appoint an independent investigator.

It is noted that the allegations are said to be vigorously denied by the accused person and it is important to remember that the presumption of innocence applies in any criminal process.

While the police investigation and criminal process should run its course, the Prime Minister should be considering as a matter of priority, and irrespective of any criminal process, the institution of an independent investigation into the complaint. Such an investigation would be expected to take into account all the available evidence, including the evidence of the person against whom the allegations are made” if he chose to participate, as well as any statement made by the complainant, any evidence of contemporaneous complaint, diary entries or the like.

To the extent that his statements yesterday means that consideration is not being given by the Prime Minister to an independent investigation into this serious allegation is disappointing to say the least.


Pauline Wright | President NSWCCL

Contact: [email protected]

 

Share

Statement: Fee increase on visa matters

25 February 2021 

PUBLIC STATEMENT

Asylum seekers who are denied visas by Mr. Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs, will now face fees of $3,330 to appeal to the Federal Circuit Court to have his decisions reviewed and overturned.  This is a clear, deliberate and unconscionable action by the Morrison Government to deny asylum seekers access to the Courts and to justice.  

The Senate yesterday debated a motion by Senator Stirling Griff to overturn the decision, but although the ALP, the Greens, and Senators Rex Patrick and Jacqui Lambie supported the motion, that was one vote short of the number needed to carry it.  

Mr. Dutton does not always get things right.  As a consequence of this decision, some asylum seekers will be detained in prison-like conditions for years, or, worse, sent back to countries from which they fled in fear for their lives, and in some cases, the lives of their children.

The fee hike is a 380% increase from $690 to $3,330 and applies only to migration matters. Other non-corporate filing fees will remain below $1,000. It uniquely targets people challenging migration decisions and seeking asylum and, because these astronomical fees will be out of reach for many within that group, means the effective denial of justice to some of the most vulnerable people coming before the justice system in Australia.


Enquires and/or for comment please contact:

NSWCCL President Pauline Wright 0418 292 656, or
Asylum Seeker & Refugee Action Group Co-convenor Dr Martin Bibby 0415 511 617

 

 

 

Share

NSWCCL on unprecedented new powers for law enforcement

Media coverage: Innovation Aus

The government-funded cybersecurity research centre has thrown its support behind the proposed “extraordinary” new hacking powers for the Australian Federal Police, its position that is at odds with human rights, civil liberties and digital rights groups, as well as a group of Senators who have all raised significant concerns about the new laws.

In a submission to government, the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre (CSCRC) said the Identify and Disrupt Bill, which hands sweeping new powers to the AFP and the Australian Crime and Intelligence Commission (ACIC) to hack into the devices and networks of suspected criminals, is proportionate, appropriate and safe.

The NSWCCL said that the new powers are “next in an accelerating wave, strengthening the powers of the state without any humility about the cumulative erosion of democratic freedoms they entail”.

“This bill builds on this ominous trend and takes it to a new level, providing unprecedented new powers for law enforcement to interfere and ‘disrupt’ communications of citizens without effective restraint. The abuse of power this bill enables will happen. Enough is enough,” the NSWCCL submission said.

A coalition of digital rights and civil liberties organisations said that the powers amount to “state-authorised hacking”.

Read more

Share

NSWCCL on Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020

Media Coverage: iTWire

'The NSW Council for Civil Liberties has slammed the proposed authorisation of coercive search powers for the Australian Federal Police and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission in a current bill — the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 — saying the warrants sought are not traditional evidence gathering tools, but effectively tools to prevent crime before it took place.

"We cannot accept a new species of warrant that is based on the notion that the role of law enforcement is to stop possible future offences from being committed where the breadth of their application is so wide," NSWCCL secretary Michelle Falstein said in a submission to an inquiry into the bill, being conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

"The minister’s focus on the need to, for example, delete online child abuse material, distracts from the real implications of this bill and pretends law enforcement agencies are not already taking appropriate action against such material." The submission was one among 13 released on Monday.

The bill, introduced on 3 December 2020, seeks to give the AFP and the ACIC three new warrants in order that they can handle serious criminal acts online.'

Read more

Share

New powers like science-fiction movie Minority Report, NSWCCL says

Media coverage: Innovation Aus

'The federal government’s proposed new hacking powers for the Australian Federal Police are a “catch-all formula for abuse” and resemble something from the Hollywood film Minority Report, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties says.

The federal government late last year quietly introduced legislation to Parliament handing broad new powers to the AFP and Australian Crime and Intelligence Commission (ACIC) to hack into the computers and networks of suspected criminals.

In its submission, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) said it was time to draw a line in the sand over increasing laws that erode privacy under the guise of preventing “serious crime”.

The council said the latest legislation is the “next in an accelerating wave, strengthening the powers of the state without any humility about the cumulative erosion of democratic freedoms they entail”.

“This bill builds on this ominous trend and takes it to a new level, providing unprecedented new powers for law enforcement to interfere and ‘disrupt’ communications of citizens without effective restraint,” the NSWCCL submission said.

“The abuse of power this bill enables will happen. Enough is enough.”

The NSWCCL said that the data disruption warrants and account takeover warrants are “crime prevention” tools that resemble something from the science-fiction movie Minority Report.

The powers will apply to a wide range of potential crimes – any carrying at least three years of jail time – not just those referenced by the government in announcing the laws, the submission said.

“This is an extraordinary catch-all encompassing fauna importation, fraud and importantly, such vaguely worded offences as ‘communication and other dealings with inherently harmful information by current and former Commonwealth officers’,” the NSWCCL said.

“These secrecy provisions have already been used to intimidate whistleblowers in several high-profile cases over the last few years. They are framed in a way that prevents vital information regarding government wrongdoing from ever coming to the attention of the public.”

The NSWCLL said that the data disruption warrants, and account takeover warrants, are “crime prevention” tools that resemble something from the science-fiction movie Minority Report.

“We cannot accept a new species of warrant that is based on the notion that the role of law enforcement is to stop possible future offences from being committed where the breadth of their application is so wide,” the NSWCCL said.'

Read more

Share