Nearly one third of the 545 Australians currently imprisoned or facing charges overseas were convicted or arrested for drug-related crimes, according to the latest figures from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. [...]

"That's an extraordinary number," said Stephen Blanks, President of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties. "If that's correct then publicly-sourced information is only scratching the surface."

Amnesty International's latest report on the death penalty, released last month, highlighted the secrecy surrounding the use of capital punishment in countries such as China, Vietnam and Malaysia.

As many as a dozen Australians - including Sherrif, Bannister, Gardner and Jalloh - are believed to be held in a single city in southern China, Guangzhou, putting estimates of the number of Australians on or facing death row as high as 17.

"China keeps its grotesque use of the death penalty a 'state secret', but our research shows that thousands of people are sentenced to death and executed each year," said Amnesty International Australia's Rose Kulak.

"China executes more people than all other countries in the world put together."

In 2016, at least 1032 people were executed worldwide, excluding in China, according to the latest Amnesty International figures.

DFAT annual reports tracking statistics on Australians arrested overseas for any offence show the rate of arrest rose to its highest level in six years in 2015-16, with 15.2 arrests per 100,000 departures. The largest number of arrests were in the US (262), followed by Thailand (107) and the United Arab Emirates (100).

"DFAT has long provided clear and consistent messaging to Australians that they must respect the laws of the countries in which they work, live or travel," a departmental spokesperson said.

Mr Blanks said the death was not appropriate for any crime, for "many reasons apart from the barbarity".

"There is always the possibility that errors in the judicial process have been made. There is always the possibility that criminals can reform themselves - and the examples of the two Australians executed in Indonesia, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, stand out in that regard," he said.

"In practice, the death penalty operates in a discriminatory way against those least able to defend themselves. Typically, it will be the drug mules that are caught and executed, rather than the organisers of the drug trade."

Article: Schapelle's home, but 170 Australians are in jail or facing charges overseas for drug crimes

Source: Sydney Morning Herald

In a surprising -and disappointing- intervention Minister Dutton has written to the Muslim Legal Network (MLN) querying the intention behind a section of their recently launched guide to anti-terrorism laws: ASIO, the Police and You.

The clear implication from the Minister was that the MLN were intentionally providing guidance to assist persons with terrorist or related criminal intentions to avoid detection by the Australian Border Force or AFP. 

The extraordinary thing about this totally unwarranted distortion of the clear intentions of the guide (and its three earlier editions since 2004) was that the specific section cited as disturbing by the Minister was closely modelled on advice provided by a NSW Regional Coordinator of the Australian Border Force and their own official fact sheet "Border Advice for Hajj Traveller" issued in 2015.  

As anyone reading this document would know the intentions behind the publication are totally constructive and positive. 

This guide was produced for the same reason the three earlier editions were: to provide the community with a clear and understandable description of these laws and the rights and responsibilities of citizens in relation to them. Surely that is a positive! 

The MLN has replied to the Minister and circulated a media statement repudiating his sinister interpretation of the guide.  Nonetheless, they will slightly amend the wording to more strongly emphasise their positive intention. 

NSWCCL considers the Minister's distorted interpretation to be deeply disturbing. We hope it does not signal an unwarranted and biased focus on this community guide to  C-T laws because it was produced by a Muslim legal network.  

We commend this 4th edition of ASIO, the Police and You. It provides a much needed service to the community - and we are very pleased that NSWCCL has contributed to all of the editions since 2004. 

Dr Lesley Lynch 

V-P NSWCCL 

MLN media release 

Anti-terrorism laws- ASIO, the police and you 

A much needed, plain English guide to Australia's complex array of counter-terrorism laws was launched tonight by the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network (AMCRAN) and the NSW Muslim Legal Network (MLN).  NSWCCL was very pleased to assist in this enterprise by reviewing and advising on aspects of the publication - as we also did in its earlier versions of 2004 and 2007. 

AMCRAN and the MLN have delivered again on very important and difficult project. It is a time-consuming and complex forensic task to analyse the 80 plus counter-terrorism laws in Australia to extract accurate and reliable information for citizens who might be impacted by these laws and their legal representatives.  

The initial edition of this guide was in response to a community need to understand new laws that were not only very complex but markedly different in their implications for rights and responsibilities of citizens- and the powers of ASIO and the AFP.   This 2017 edition incorporates the virtual tsunami of new counter-terrorism laws passed in recent years- significant parts of which the NSWCCL, the Law Council of Australia and many community groups strongly opposed.  

Significant changes covered in this version include:

"new offences of advocating terrorism and genocide; the new offence of travelling to declared areas; laws affecting citizenship and passports; the introduction of named person warrants; the introduction of mandatory metadata retention laws; laws allowing control orders to apply to children as young as 14 years; and the increase of the powers of both the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP)".  (Preface to the 4th edition) 

This guide will help the the community to understand the reach of current counter-terrorism laws and the powers of ASIO and the Australian Federal Police. It may also be helpful for ASIO and AFP officers. It is a terrifically important publication - and we congratulate the MLN and AMCRAN and the other individuals who assisted with the writing and review process. 

We are fairly confident - along with the publishers - that this will not be the final version. 

In the near future NSWCCL will be collaborating with other interested groups to run forums to familiarise interested people with the contents and significance of this updated guide. 

Dr Lesley Lynch

Convenor National Security and Counter Terrorism Group. 

Anti-terrorism laws- ASIO the police and you 

NSWCCL has formally argued its strong support for a national anti-corruption agency in Australia.

We put our views in a submission to the current Senate Select Committee Inquiry on a National Integrity Commission (NIC) which continues the work of the 2016 Inquiry on the same topic: i.e. should  Australia have a national anti-corruption body like the NSW ICAC and similar bodies in other states?

As a civil liberties organisation NSWCCL has previously opposed anti-corruption agencies sitting outside the established justice system and wielding extraordinary coercive and covert powers. We have cautiously shifted our position in response to the growing threat that increasingly complex forms of corruption pose to the public good in Australia:  undermining the integrity of our political system, distorting the policy making process, diverting resources from public good objectives and generally undermining public trust in our political class, governing institutions and public administration. 

Not content with the Migration Act in its current form, the Government continues to put forward changes designed to increase the power of the Minister and further constrain avenues available to asylum seekers and refugees. Our Asylum Seeker and Refugee Action Group has considered these bills and asks you to contact your local members of Parliament to oppose the proposed changes to the Migration Act.  If you have a Coalition member of the Federal Parliament, you could urge them to rethink these Bills. If you have a local or nearby ALP member of the Federal Parliament, you could contact them, or one of the NSW ALP or Green Senators—to urge them to maintain their opposition to the following bills. Two of these Bills have been passed by the House of Representatives but, so far, been rejected or delayed by the Senate (the third of the Bills listed below has not yet passed the House of Representatives): 

 The Migration Amendment (Visa Revalidation and Other Measures) Bill 2016,

The Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016,

The Migration Legislation Amendment (Code of Procedure Harmonisation) Bill 2016 Provisions. 

 These bills contain shameful features which would undermine the rights, not only of asylum seekers and of recognised refugees, but of permanent residents and temporary visa holders across the board.  They give unprecedented, non-compellable, non-reviewable powers to the Minister for Immigration and Border Security. 

 Full details of objections to these bills are made in submissions made by the Law Council of Australia or by the CCL and minority reports by ALP senators and by Green senators on the Legal and Constitutional Committee of the Senate (LEGCON).

The president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Stephen Blanks, said the LECC’s delay left the state without an effective oversight body.

“Given that we are already in May and its website says they will start taking complaints in May, the public has got a legitimate expectation that more information should be available about when the LECC should commence their operations,” he said.

“A properly independent body responsible for dealing with complaints about police is a critically important aspect of ensuring that police are properly accountable.

“Interactions with the police for many members of the public are often difficult and in difficult circumstances. There does need to be a proper complaints process and a proper investigatory body which can deal with complaints about the police.”

Article: NSW police complaints in limbo as new watchdog falls behind schedule

Source: The Guardian

Abortions are legally conducted under an interpretation of the Crimes Act by the NSW district court in 1971, known as the Levine ruling, which allows doctors to approve the procedure when a woman’s physical or mental health is in danger, and taking into account social, economic or other medical factors.

The ACT has decriminalised abortion completely and Tasmania and Victoria have also successfully pursued abortion law reform.

But similar attempts in Queensland ran into difficulty and were delayed earlier this year, following opposition from the state’s Liberal National party party.

The bill will also seek to establish 150-metre safe access zones around abortion clinics to protect women’s privacy and prevent harassment from protesters. 

The reforms have the backing of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Marie Stopes, Family Planning NSW and many other groups.

Article: Abortion decriminalisation to get renewed push in NSW parliament

Source: The Guardian

The push for abortion law reform in NSW takes another step tomorrow (Thursday 11/05/17).  The Legislative Council will debate and vote on the Abortion Law Reform Bill introduced by Greens MLC Mehreen Faruqi. ALP members will have a conscience vote- and there is just a chance that it might get passed in the Council.

This would be a significant step in NSW –even though it is unlikely that it will get majority support in the current lower house.

NSWCCL has publicly supported the Bill. Yesterday we wrote to all members of the NSW Parliament urging them to give this Bill proper and positive consideration and to support its passage through Parliament so that matters relating to abortion in NSW are treated primarily as a health rather than a criminal matter. 

On Wednesday last week (22/3/170) the AG George Brandis introduced the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 into the Senate with the intention of its being considered very quickly. It immediately generated a wave of community opposition – especially from ethnic/multicultural community groups.  

On Thursday, the Bill was referred to the Legislative and Constitutional Affairs Committee for a ridiculously rushed ‘review’ with the Committee having to report by the following Tuesday (28/3/17).

This was a provocative time frame, effectively barring the community from any meaningful input into assessing the implications of the proposed changes on the ambit and operation of the Act. 

NSWCCL strongly opposes the proposed amendments in this Bill which will seriously and unnecessarily weaken protections against race hate speech  currently provided by s18(C ) of the Act.

The right to protection against race hate speech 

The Freedom of Speech in Australia Report (28^th January 2017) will bring no joy to those urging wholesale repeal  or major  weakening  of Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act  which prohibits racially motivated hate speech. 

At the end of another (unnecessary and rushed) review process, which attracted 11460 responses, the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee was unable to make a recommendation to the Government on this core provision.  Instead it restricted itself to listing 6 options that had the support of at least one Committee member. (R3).  Neither abolition nor major weakening of the provision appears in this list of options. Not one Committee member supported an extreme option.

The annual Palm Sunday March this year will be a protest against the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees by Australia, both in the offshore detention centres of Nauru and Manus Island and in those on the Australian mainland.  The CCL Committee is formally endorsing this protest and march, and urges you to join us. 

Conditions for the refugees and asylum seekers dumped on Manus Island and Nauru remain intolerable.  Manus has claimed the lives of Reza Barati, Hamid Khazaei, Kamil Hussain and Faysal Ishak Ahmed, while Omid Masoumali died on Nauru.  There will be more deaths, if we do not act effectively.

There are also around 30,000 refugees within Australia seeking asylum.  At present, most will at best receive temporary protection visas, leaving them in fear of forced return to danger, and unable to reunite with their families.  

The proceedings will begin in Hyde Park North, at 2.00 p.m., on Palm Sunday, April 9.  We look forward to seeing you there. Find out more about the rally on their Facebook event page. 

A man was filmed allegedly punching a police officer in a full-blown assault captured on camera during a routine traffic stop in Western Sydney.

The hit occurred as Emad Khassem was being arrested at Merrylands before he fled.The officer then appears to pepper spray him in the face.

The incident is an all-too common occurrence for police on the beat, according to former detective Tim Priest. "Typical these days of what police are confronted with, there's just absolutely no respect for authority anymore," Mr Priest told 7 News.

Mr Khassem was charged with resist arrest and assaulting police although it's not clear what led to him apparently being pepper-sprayed.

NSW Council of Civil Liberties Stephen Blanks noted, "It's clearly something which is going to have to examined in its whole context when the matter goes to court."

Article/Video: Police officer punched in face during routine questioning

Source: Channel 7 News

National issues | Defending s18C and the AHRC...again! | Asylum Seekers | Ratification of OPCAT | Civil Liberties perspective on a national integrity body | Access to telecommunications data in civil proceedings

NSW Issues | New police oversight body | Defending the right to protest | Know your Rights Booklet | Reorganisation of Justice portfolio 

CCL Issues | 10th Anniversary Marsden Lecture | Submissions | Join an Action Group 

Download February 2017 Newsletter

National issues | Asylum Seekers | Counter-terrorism  

NSW Issues | Revenge Porn Inquiry | Civil Oversight of NSW Police  

CCL Issues | Annual Dinner | Annual General Meeting 2016 | Submissions | Join an Action Group 

Download November 2016 Newsletter

National issues | Census | Asylum Seekers | Royal Commission into Northern Territory Juvenile Detention  

NSW Issues | Anti-protest legislation | Euthanasia Bill  

CCL Issues | Annual Dinner | Submissions | Update from National Security and Counter-terrorism Action Group | Join an Action Group 

Download August 2016 Newsletter

NSWCCL recently lodged a submission with the Attorney General’s Department and the Department of Communications and Arts in January 2017. We reiterated our view that the current metadata scheme is an affront to civil liberties and oppose its extension into civil proceedings. Extension of the uses to which metadata may be put is one of the reasons that we opposed the introduction of laws requiring collection and retention of metadata in the first place.

In our submission we noted the international experience, which suggests that metadata rarely makes a difference in criminal investigations. 

In February 2016 a Senate Select Committee was set up to ‘inquire into whether a national integrity commission should be established to address institutional, organisational, political and electoral, and individual corruption and misconduct.’ NSWCCL gave some time to considering what position –if any-  it would take on this contentious matter,  however the Turnbull-generated double dissolution meant the Inquiry lapsed.

The Committee produced an interim report of no great consequence  in that it did not go beyond recommending further research into appropriate anti-corruption systems. It did however canvass the issues with the current system in some detail and it did conclude that there were shortcomings that needed addressing. Even this cautious conclusion was too much for the two government members of the committee (Eric Abetz and David Johnson) and they included a dissenting view that there was no evidence of such shortcomings. 

The inquiry attracted  some very useful submissions - notably that of the Law Council and the NSW ICAC. 

The political debate as to the need for a national anti-corruption body is again very much alive. Not surprisingly, the Senate moved  as soon as the current session began to reactivate an inquiry into whether a National Integrity Commission is needed and if so its scope and power.  It is to report by 15^th August.  Senator Gallagher moved the resolution on behalf of the leader of the ALP  in the Senate (Penny Wong). 

This Senate decision pre-empted a motion later that day from the leader of the Greens, Senator Di Natale  calling on the Senate to bypass an inquiry and  move straight to the establishment of ‘an independent federal anti-corruption commission to oversee federal members of parliament and the public service”. This was defeated.

The Member for Davidson, Jonathan O'Dea, said the burka should not be worn in public and police should be given powers to enforce its removal, saying Politicians should accept "reasonable societal norms" and ban the burka.

Mr O'Dea said his stance was not racially discriminatory because it would be extended to masks and helmets.

"Unless mainstream political parties respect what are are commonly acceptable and reasonable societal norms then it gives space for people like Pauline Hanson to capitalise and play on racial or religious bigotry," he said.

Stephen Blanks from the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties said the Premier Gladys Berejiklian should dismiss the calls.

"We really have to think carefully about who in society we want to criminalise [and] subject to the force of the police and the court system," he said.

"We could criminalise all sorts of things some people find annoying. But when you think about it, it just doesn't work for society to do that.

"We have to have a level of tolerance, we have to have a level of restraint."

Article: NSW MP Jonathan O'Dea says 'reasonable people' would support burka ban

Source: ABC News Online

A new body of vital importance to the NSW justice sector -the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) – was set up in January following the passage of The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act last year. It brings together the oversight and investigative roles of the Police Integrity Commission, the Police Division of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Inspector of the Crime Commission into a single civilian body to oversight police operations.  It has royal commission type powers in some contexts. Its oversight powers relate to the NSW Police Force and the NSW Crimes Commission.

It is the latest outcome from the long (and unfinished) campaign to achieve effective independent oversight of NSW Police operations and was largely shaped by the recommendations of the 2015 Tink Report.  There are grounds to expect this body will significantly improve some aspects of police oversight and accountability but there are gaps and weaknesses in its structure which do not augur well for the much needed reform of police culture in critical areas and may undermine its overall effectiveness. 

Both s18c of the Race Discrimination Act and the Australian Human Rights Commission are again under serious attack from the Federal Government. 

George Brandis’ attempt to weaken s18c in 2014 was soundly repudiated by the Australian people and the then PM (Abbott) wisely retreated and abandoned the amendment.  NSWCCL strongly opposed the Brandis Bill and thought the Government unlikely to try again given the depth of community anger aroused by the proposal..

We were misguided. Emboldened by the recent rise of the far right here and overseas – and within the Liberal Party - the Government is now targeting not just the legal protections against racist abuse provided under s18C but also the processes of the AHRC which have served Australia well for 20 plus years.

This new push poses a serious threat to the protections currently provided by the RDA and to the AHRC. We have therefore again joined many others in arguing the case against weakening s18C and in supporting the overwhelmingly positive record of the AHRC in resolving the vast majority of complaints effectively through conciliation while dismissing those that are trivial or vexatious.  We are not aware of any cases under the RDA which have unreasonably constrained freedom of speech in Australia.