 |
|
|
The Rev Fred Nile MLC, leader of the Christian Democratic Party, has congratulated Pope Benedict XVI on his proposed visit to Istanbul, once the Christian Capital City of Constantinople.
“I was shocked when I last visited Istanbul. The Christian Cathedral of Hagia Sophia ("Church of Holy Wisdom"), widely regarded as one of the greatest buildings ever created, converted to a Mosque after a bloody Moslem conquest in 1453 and finally converted to a Moslem museum in 1935, has since been allowed to deteriorate despite significant offers of assistance from the Orthodox Church. When inspecting the Cathedral, I realised that every sign of the cross on the thousands of stones had been chipped and chiselled away.
I call on Pope Benedict XVI to urge the Government of Turkey, in a sign of good faith, peace and harmony, to restore this Christian Cathedral to the Christian Church”, stated Rev Fred Nile MLC.
In early 2003 the former Premier, Mr Carr, declared the Government's intention to introduce legislation to overturn the rule against double jeopardy in certain circumstances, such as in cases of murder. Under his direction, a consultation draft was released entitled "Criminal Appeal Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2003". Clearly, the bill is not being rushed through the Parliament; rather, its drafting has involved detailed consideration of the issues relating to double jeopardy. The Attorney General sought advice from Acting Justice Jane Mathews as to the form of the legislation, in view of the submissions provided during consultation on the draft bill. Acting Justice Mathews provided her advice to the Attorney General on 27 November 2003, and many of her recommendations were adopted in the legislation.
In the same year, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General referred the issue of double jeopardy to the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, a committee constituted by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. That committee released a discussion paper on double jeopardy in November 2003. In March 2004 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General considered the recommendations of the committee. In July 2006 the Council of Australian Governments agreed to a review of laws relating to double jeopardy, with a senior officials COAG working group dedicated to the task. It is anticipated that the working group's report will be presented at the end of this year.
The Council of Australian Governments considered that the reform of the rule against double jeopardy was "an important criminal law reform issue which merits nationally-consistent treatment". It is fairly obvious that following the passage of this legislation through the New South Wales Parliament there is a strong possibility similar legislation will be introduced by the other States and we will have uniform legislation in Australia—probably also in regard to Commonwealth legislation.
It is very important to note that this legislation will benefit many people who are victims of crime or who are related to a murder victim. For example, the President of the Victims of Crime Assistance League, Howard Brown, welcomed the bill, saying victims groups have been lobbying for change for six years. He said he knew of one case where a person who provided an alibi for a man accused of murder was serving six years in gaol for perjury, but the accused had been acquitted on the alibi and was free. He said that with this legislation it would be possible to retry that case.
The impact of DNA in criminal cases is particularly important. There have been many developments in criminal investigation techniques over the years, DNA being one of the most significant. It is valuable in establishing the guilt of those who commit crime, but the DNA Review Panel, which will be established by the cognate bill, can establish the innocence of someone wrongly convicted of a crime; it will allow convicted prisoners to ask for DNA testing to be undertaken in an effort to prove their innocence. DNA testing is a very important weapon in law and order.
Last year, because of similar concerns in the United Kingdom and because of developments in the use of DNA, the British Government changed its 800-year-old double jeopardy rule. The first person to face a retrial under that law pleaded guilty to a charge of murdering a young mother in 1989. William Dunlop, aged 43, initially denied his guilt but told the Old Bailey—the British Court in London—in September that he had sexually assaulted and strangled Julie Hogg, a 20-year-old pizza delivery woman with whom he had had a brief relationship. William Dunlop had been tried twice for her murder in 1991 but the juries in each case failed to reach a verdict. He was formally acquitted under the legal convention that prosecutors do not ask for a third trial if juries twice fail to agree.
However, Dunlop confessed the murder to a prison warder in 1999, while serving a seven-year sentence for an attack on another former lover, and he was sentenced to six years for perjury. But it was only following a change in the law last year that enabled him to be retried for the murder of Ms Hogg, whose mother, Ann Ming, wept in court in September after campaigning for 15 years to have double jeopardy scrapped. She found her daughter's body hidden behind a panel in Ms Hogg's bathroom 80 days after the murder, despite a five-day police search of the house. Dunlop confessed to the murder even though he had been acquitted previously.
The former Director of Public Prosecutions in the United Kingdom, Sir David Calvert Smith, estimated that about 10 cases would be reviewed each year as a result of the change to the British law. He said one such case to be reviewed is highly controversial and relates to a black teenager, Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in a racist attack in 1993 but whose killers were never convicted. Because of this double jeopardy provision there is now hope that his killers will be brought to justice. Another similarly tragic case—which has been shown recently in great detail on Australian television—involves the murder of three Aboriginal children at Bowraville. The suspect in the murders has been brought before the courts but a conviction has not been obtained. This law will assist in bringing that person back before the courts and, hopefully, will result in a finding of guilt. The new evidence will be, without a doubt, sufficient to prove his guilt.
The murder of Deirdre Kennedy in Queensland has led to the collection of thousands of signatures in support of a similar law change in that State: there is a very strong possibility the law will be changed in Queensland. Deirdre's mother, Faye Kennedy, has campaigned to have the man twice accused of her daughter's killing to be retried if the laws are changed. Deirdre, when just 17 months old, was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered near Brisbane almost 30 years ago. A jury convicted Raymond John Carroll of murder, but he was acquitted on appeal.
Other members have referred to opposition to this legislation, and I suppose that is to be expected. The Law Society of New South Wales wrote in a detailed submission to me on 25 September:
The Law Society is strongly opposed to any change in the double jeopardy rule and supports the retention of the law relating to double jeopardy as it currently applies.
I understand that is also the view of the New South Wales Bar Association. The Australian Section of the International Commission of Jurists sent me a submission on 16 October claiming:
This Bill is in particular flawed for a number of reasons:
• S 99 (revocation of the double jeopardy rule for "very serious offences" punishable by imprisonment for life) is too broad • S 101 (retrials for administration of justice offences with 15 or more year sentences where tainted acquittal) creates great uncertainty and an inefficient use of the Court's resources • S 102 (Fresh and compelling evidence) is unclear. In particular, there is likely to be much litigation over the meaning of "compelling evidence" which can differ case by case • S 104 (Interests of Justice) does not consider failure to act with due diligence in the earlier proceeding, an important consideration to ensure the incentive for prosecutorial diligence remains
Obviously not one of us would like to see this legislation, which modifies double jeopardy, lead to police not being as diligent in acquiring evidence and prosecuting a case because they think they can have a second shot if things do not work out initially. This is not the intention of the legislation, and the process should be monitored closely to ensure that efforts to acquire evidence and to prosecute cases are not relaxed and that successful verdicts are achieved at first instance, thus obviating the need to apply the double jeopardy provisions. We support both bills”, Rev Nile stated.