dvsbastard
Kennel Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 2,753
- Reaction score
- 12
Hoax crackdown toughens terror laws
Simon Kearney
A NEW "terrorist hoax" offence that will allow people who make elaborate threats to be prosecuted without proving they intended to carry out an attack is being planned by the federal Government.
The new offence will create a more serious charge for people who cause chaos for the public and emergency services by dreaming up devastating terrorist-inspired hoaxes.
But it will also give prosecutors without conclusive proof a lesser terrorism offence to counter a defence that "it was all a hoax".
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the federal Government wanted to change the law following a request from the commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Damian Bugg, and from the Australian Federal Police.
"The Government considers that hoaxes relating to terrorist activity should be distinguished from other types of hoax incidents because of the potential to cause significant alarm and disruption in the community," Mr Ruddock said in a submission to the federal parliament's Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
"Two recent incidents have demonstrated that existing hoax offences that apply in other contexts may not be as effective for investigating and prosecuting elaborate terrorist hoax offences."
The Australian understands the first of the incidents involved two harmless improvised explosive devices being sent in the post - one to a senior federal government official and another to a senior elected official from a foreign country. A person has been charged in relation to the offences.
The second involves the internet being used to threaten a chemical weapons attack on public utilities.
Mr Bugg first suggested the changes to the law to the recent Sheller inquiry into Australia's terrorism laws.
Last week, having secured a "win" with Canberra, he told parliament's intelligence and security committee, which is also examining Australia's terror laws, that having a new offence would give prosecutors a fall-back option in cases where juries were wavering.
"If someone says, 'Well, I really didn't intend it; it was all a hoax', and if the jury entertained a reasonable doubt about it, in spite of the fact that people have shut down airports and what have you, they will walk away," he said.
"It is almost like the alternative verdict provision."
One of the 13 Melbourne men accused of plotting a terrorist attack on Australian soil used a similar defence when, representing himself, he applied for bail in Melbourne Magistrates Court in April.
Bassam Raad repeatedly told magistrate Paul Smith he had only discussed religion with fellow accused Abdul Nacer Benbrika.
"We would just talk, we would not do," he said. "You're putting away an innocent man."
The AFP's national manager of counter-terrorism, Frank Prendergast, backed the commonwealth prosecutor, saying the hoax offence was needed because of the vast amount of resources that could be tied up responding to unsubstantiated terrorist threats.
"We think there is scope to include a specific hoax offence ... reflecting the necessary response to that type of threat, the way it ties up valuable law enforcement, emergency service and other resources in responding to that threat and the impact that those types of threats may have on the community as a whole," he said.
Joanna Hemmingway, a lawyer with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, said the body backed the proposed new law, as long as there was a provision to ensure the threat was credible and not a "distasteful joke standing in the queue at the airport".
She saidIt would clarify the law in relation to a threatened terrorist action.
"Our view was that if a hoax provision or a non-genuine threat provision was enacted, it should be enacted along the lines of the UN draft convention in relation to terrorism - that is that the threat has to be a credible and serious threat," Ms Hemmingway said.
For the Howard Government to act, it will need to draft national legislation and get a referral of powers from the states, which currently legislate for hoaxes.
The West Australian Government is considering the proposal but said the commonwealth would need to spell out clearly how it was needed.
"The circumstances proposed to be covered would need to be clear and for the purpose of addressing a critical gap in state law," West Australian Department of Premier and Cabinet director-general Malcolm Wauchope told the inquiry.
Mr Ruddock has claimed "spectacular co-operation" from the states and territories in enacting strong counter-terrorism laws, with the exception of the ACT.
Most have enacted laws to complement measures in the commonwealth's Anti-Terrorism Act, which includes provisions for control orders, preventive detention and sedition offences, and expands the definition of a terrorist organisation.
Simon Kearney
A NEW "terrorist hoax" offence that will allow people who make elaborate threats to be prosecuted without proving they intended to carry out an attack is being planned by the federal Government.
The new offence will create a more serious charge for people who cause chaos for the public and emergency services by dreaming up devastating terrorist-inspired hoaxes.
But it will also give prosecutors without conclusive proof a lesser terrorism offence to counter a defence that "it was all a hoax".
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the federal Government wanted to change the law following a request from the commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Damian Bugg, and from the Australian Federal Police.
"The Government considers that hoaxes relating to terrorist activity should be distinguished from other types of hoax incidents because of the potential to cause significant alarm and disruption in the community," Mr Ruddock said in a submission to the federal parliament's Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
"Two recent incidents have demonstrated that existing hoax offences that apply in other contexts may not be as effective for investigating and prosecuting elaborate terrorist hoax offences."
The Australian understands the first of the incidents involved two harmless improvised explosive devices being sent in the post - one to a senior federal government official and another to a senior elected official from a foreign country. A person has been charged in relation to the offences.
The second involves the internet being used to threaten a chemical weapons attack on public utilities.
Mr Bugg first suggested the changes to the law to the recent Sheller inquiry into Australia's terrorism laws.
Last week, having secured a "win" with Canberra, he told parliament's intelligence and security committee, which is also examining Australia's terror laws, that having a new offence would give prosecutors a fall-back option in cases where juries were wavering.
"If someone says, 'Well, I really didn't intend it; it was all a hoax', and if the jury entertained a reasonable doubt about it, in spite of the fact that people have shut down airports and what have you, they will walk away," he said.
"It is almost like the alternative verdict provision."
One of the 13 Melbourne men accused of plotting a terrorist attack on Australian soil used a similar defence when, representing himself, he applied for bail in Melbourne Magistrates Court in April.
Bassam Raad repeatedly told magistrate Paul Smith he had only discussed religion with fellow accused Abdul Nacer Benbrika.
"We would just talk, we would not do," he said. "You're putting away an innocent man."
The AFP's national manager of counter-terrorism, Frank Prendergast, backed the commonwealth prosecutor, saying the hoax offence was needed because of the vast amount of resources that could be tied up responding to unsubstantiated terrorist threats.
"We think there is scope to include a specific hoax offence ... reflecting the necessary response to that type of threat, the way it ties up valuable law enforcement, emergency service and other resources in responding to that threat and the impact that those types of threats may have on the community as a whole," he said.
Joanna Hemmingway, a lawyer with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, said the body backed the proposed new law, as long as there was a provision to ensure the threat was credible and not a "distasteful joke standing in the queue at the airport".
She saidIt would clarify the law in relation to a threatened terrorist action.
"Our view was that if a hoax provision or a non-genuine threat provision was enacted, it should be enacted along the lines of the UN draft convention in relation to terrorism - that is that the threat has to be a credible and serious threat," Ms Hemmingway said.
For the Howard Government to act, it will need to draft national legislation and get a referral of powers from the states, which currently legislate for hoaxes.
The West Australian Government is considering the proposal but said the commonwealth would need to spell out clearly how it was needed.
"The circumstances proposed to be covered would need to be clear and for the purpose of addressing a critical gap in state law," West Australian Department of Premier and Cabinet director-general Malcolm Wauchope told the inquiry.
Mr Ruddock has claimed "spectacular co-operation" from the states and territories in enacting strong counter-terrorism laws, with the exception of the ACT.
Most have enacted laws to complement measures in the commonwealth's Anti-Terrorism Act, which includes provisions for control orders, preventive detention and sedition offences, and expands the definition of a terrorist organisation.
