In his report "Re: Amendments to section 304 of the Criminal Code" - JA Jerrard BA,LLB, LLM, QC, described as the case of R v Peterson and Smith, (who were sentenced on 14 October 2011 in Maryborough circuit court for the offence of manslaughter of Stephen Ward) as an "unequivocal example" of the homosexual advance argument under the provocation partial defence.
Thursday, 26 July 2012
United Nations Treaty Obligation
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
(Article 26 of the Treaty imposes a right not only to formal equality but also substantive equality. In other words, even though, for example, the partial defence appears neutral on its face, if it operates in a discriminatory fashion against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation, this provision is also breached.
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
To the Premier
TO The Premier, the Hon Mr. Campbell Newman,
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your assurance that your Government takes
seriously the well-being of the community. I also note your commitment to get
tough on crime and its punishment.
I assure you, I did not enter into this petition campaign
lightly.
Firstly I must say that the common law defence of homosexual
advance is very real and is illustrated by the infamous case of Malcom Thomas
Green v The Queen [1997] HCA 50. It is real and the dissenting judge in that
case was the then Kirby J who ably highlighted what was very wrong with
the use of this argument, but he was in the minority.
Did you know that two separate cases in the space of a year
in this same area of Maryborough, involved two unrelated and separate cases where an individual male was set upon by two
stronger men and was repeatedly bashed in the most savage way and then, (to add to the
horror), were left unaided, exposed to the elements and died. (R v
Meerdink and Pearce, sentenced on 13 May 2010, for an offence of manslaughter
committed on or about 4 July 2008, involving the killing of Wayne Ruks; the
second being R v Peterson and Smith, who were sentenced on 14 October 2011 in Maryborough
circuit court for the offence of manslaughter of Stephen Ward). It is so
shocking. And did you know that in BOTH these cases, two separate cases
in the same area in the space of a trial year!!??, when the assailants were
caught and charged with murder, in each of those two separate cases one of the assailants in both cases claimed that the reason for
their horrific and violent action was that the man had (allegedly) TOUCHED them in a homosexual way, that is they allegedly made a homosexual advance at them
and that the assailant had then lost control and bashed them repeatedly as a response to this purported non-violent homosexual advance and after the bashing left them effectively unaided and the victims dies. IN both of these two separate cases an assailant also added that they had been abused as a child and but it is not clear whether any evidence for
these assertions was given and how this justified the bashing of an adult who allegedly touched another adult.
I must admit to you that two cases in two years is
unbelievable. My honest reaction was “What are
the chances of the same kind of offence with the same kind of excuse in the
space of a year of trials????" It was clear that this was
extremely concerning. It is really playing with words to then say that
the cases did not necessarily finally turn on these excuses and defences
because these circumstances “got in” and most certainly came up in front of a
jury in both cases. And as the Victorian Law Reform commission pointed out,
Juries does not have to give reasons for their findings and one cannot
definitively say therefore how any potentially pejorative matters that are put
forward a brutal bashing death. Whenever it is raised by someone that they
responded to a (alleged but not proved) relatively minor physical
touching with such violence to a Homosexual advance, it could
potentially in any future cases this is raised in either by formal use of the
defence or by way of ‘circumtances’ or whatever, it has a terrible
potential to tap deep biases and prejudices and leave the profound
impression that this excessive violence and loss of control was somehow either
warranted at least somehow explanatory of the behaviour. In my firm
belief and the belief of two hundred thousand petitioners, this is not at all
acceptable and should not be permitted in any future cases. Only further
legislative drafting would effect this.
Did you know that in the Ruks Killing case, the first of
these cases, the issue of homosexual advance was raised before a jury and also
raised in the consideration of the judge’s sentencing considerations. It
is therefore quite wrong to say that this case did not raise the matter and the
issue and the availability of the common law defence of homosexual advance as
accepted in case law/ common law in this country under this partial defence of
provocation . Mr Premier, you say that it is misleading to suggest
that this defence can only be used against homosexuals but you appear to be
labouring under a misunderstanding. I have never said that this defence can
only be used against homosexuals, I am saying and assert to you very, very
emphatically (and no legal expert in this section would seriously
disagree) that the common law defence of homosexual advance, as defined by case
law is MOST CERTAINLY available under the provocation partial defence within
Queensland law as it stands now, and even as it stands after some
tweaking. As you can see from the above summary, the two cases that
played out in Maryborough region can obviously still raise this common law
defence under the act even now after the changes last year. The amendments, as
your AG has pointed out, preclude mere words, but you can clearly see that
these two cases alleged that touching (but not grievous assault) occurred and
with alleged (but unproved) assertions of past sexual abuse. SO clearly it
would not need to be “tested” as your government representatives keep
mentioning, because it is clear on the face of it that this kind of archaic and
pejorative defence that could tap into potential jury prejudice and homophobia
and infest the whole consideration, turning the victim into the person on trial
in effect.
So, in summary, I am saying that the common law defence of
homosexual advance is available under Queensland law and it is this which I am
campaigning to have effectively eradicated. I assert to you
that it is misleading of you to say that the gay panic defence does not exist
or is not available under the law just because it is not referred to explicitly
under the provocation heading. To say it is not existent or not
available is like saying you cannot get milk and eggs from a “grocery store”
because the words “milk” and “eggs” are not expressly named in the title
of “grocery store” – and similarly, to say that the common law defence of
“homosexual defence as a subset of the provocation partial defence under the
code” is not available because it is not named explicitly is making the
same ridiculous assertion. It is a completely unhelpful and misleading assertion.
As you and any legal person would know, the law is not just found by looking at
the face of the legislation but by caselaw and common law except where
explicitly excluded by the legislation or by interpretation of the law through
case law and precedent. It is thoroughly misleading and disingenuous to
look at a section of legislation and say that a particular common law does not
exist because it does not appear in the words of the particular section. That
would be to conveniently ignore the operation of the caselaw and interpretation
of that section. I recommend an annotated code to prevent this simplistic
misinterpretation.
Although you say that provocation is not based on sexuality,
this ignores the uneven way that the defence has played out in society.
It was so bad that the provocation defence has been declared unsalvageable by
the Victorian Government and removed completely and was similarly removed by
the New Zealand government. There are also other things
wrong with the provocation defence in addition to the horrific
availability of the homosexual advance defence. In fact, provocation has
been used disproportionately against some groups more than others. If it
were actually applied evenly it would cause such an outcry that it would be removed
immediately, because although it does not appear to be uneven, it does indeed
operate with tragic and unacceptable effect on some groups more than
others. Provocation negatively affects homosexual males (or those
alleged to have made homosexual passes who are then bashed to death for
this), racial minorities and women who are in abusive relationships with
abusive (usually male) partners. This is why the provocation defence has
not place in a civilised society. It is an allowance by the legal system
that it is somehow understandable or a mitigating circumstance that some people
will totally lose control of their temper and savagely kill another and lose
all control. This has no place in our society. The only legitimate excuse for
killing is surely self defence when someone is in actual reasonable fear of
their life, not a total loss control and a rage set off by various prejudices,
biases or bigotries that an otherwise reasonable person might have.
Just because there are other uses for provocation which also
have terrible consequences does not mean that the homosexual advance defence is
not also horrific and unacceptable.
Even if one decides that provocation ought to stay and this
is clearly not a good idea, there are other ways to eradicate this
poisonous common law defence by further legislative amendment.
Mr Newman, you and the AG welcomed the expert committee
report by JA Jerrard BA,LLB, LLM, QC and expressed gratitude to him and the
committee for their work. That report indicated that more indeed needed to be
done to this section. This was not, as described by some, a political
football or a stunt by any means.
The previous government and the present have also fallen into
the trap of saying the provocation defence cannot be removed because it is
needed to allow bashed spouses and partners to plead their case when they kill
their abusive partners. However, this is misleading as Queensland has another
section on this which could be strengthened if needed. Victoria has removed
provocation and inserted a new section on family violence to cover such things.
I have raised this because I have seen
this issue slipped into two cases twice in a year in my own area. The
first case, the Ruks case I know (because I saw the CCTV footage – I provided
it from my cameras), that no such alleged sexual advance occurred but it was
asserted. The mother of the victim has called it a pack of lies. One
wonders why such a load or rubbish defence was raised if it didn’t happen
unless it was somehow felt it might sway the thinking of people!!!
Please, Mr Newman, this is real and it’s a real concern.
Yours Sincerely
Fr Paul Kelly
Thursday, 19 July 2012
some handy links
The following links will give detail about them, especially the
report to the AG below…..
Here are some helpful
links:
The following was the
announcement that the former government was going to make changes to the
law. This government never got to do
this and then the present government has decided not to make such changes
the two cases you are
looking for are looked in the following report below. In this report the expert
committee recommend further changes. I don’t think this even goes far enough
but it shows the problems and expounds the two cases I refer to…
the high court of
Australia expounded on the homosexual advance in this precedent case, and the
problems with this archaic defence are ably summed up by the dissenting opinion
of Justice Kirby…
In the Australian
state of Victoria the legislature has removed the defence of provocation
entirely because of concerns such as the ones we have been raising… and they
put in a special section to cover family violence: the following documents show that many of the
arguments raised by the Queensland government are disingenuous because the
Victorian reforms have dealt with them rather effectively.
one
problem in Queensland is that we have mandatory life sentence for Murder
convictions and the Victorian law does not but it still deals with many of the same issues and comes up with solid solutions. Also, we submit that this does
not justify a defence that basically allows for people to lose it and lash
out. The only acceptable defence for
homicide is self defence, not provocation.
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
furhter thoughts
A response to someone who is analysing the effect of unjustly operating laws on minorities in developing countries:
I agree that this kind of intolerance and
bigotry and inequality can indeed occur even in developed Western nations, but
as you are observing, if it happens here it is being done subtly, but the
uneven application or effect of particular laws, and by common law
interpretations that are archaic, or by pathetic and weak excuses by the
legislators and legal authorities who raise up all disingenuous excuses for not doing anything,
which really indicates in my view that they do hold bigoted views but aren't
saying it. one of the lamest excuses by
our Attorney General is that the law in question is available for everyone and is not targeted
against gays and can be used by men or
women, which completely ignores the fact that a man using provocation as an excuse for bashing his wife to death would be
not acceptable to the community and a
woman bashing a man for a low level unwanted pass would be met with complete horror. The attorney general here
says 'we can't go changing laws lightly
becuase of petitions' but then in other cases says, 'we must take into account communuty standards and expectations.'
which means that in effect he is saying
that they listen carefully to some groups within society and give weight to their needs and concerns and ignore or
minimise others due to some undisclosed
and unjust internal standard that i suspect is actually bigotry, ignorance and a hatred for what they see as
merely a 'gay agenda' you are on to
something with this. In the west, you can still be (sadly) bigoted and unequal, but in the West, it has
to be masked with a thin veil of democratic
rhetoric and excuses (usually which are inconsistent and illogical and contradictory) but which are minimally
plausible for the audience, but don't stand
up to rigorous analysis.
Monday, 16 July 2012
From Bad to Worse (update)
It just gets worse. A supporter posted a question on Queensland Premier Mr Campbell Newman's facebook and this is what happened:
Commentator: Question for yourself and your goverment, Why is it acceptable in this
day and age in the state of Queensland that in law is the Gay panic defence and
in your goverments opinion not necessary to change it. Violence against anyone
based on colour, relegion, cultural background or sexual orientation is wrong
to anyone with any sort of morales or sense of justice just not in Queensland,
yet this is what your agreeing to without looking into an arcahic law that
belongs in the 17th century, I am incredibly saddened that the CAN DO Premier
thinks that this is acceptable in any way shape or form :(
There is no “gay
panic” defence - it is a concocted interpretation of Queensland provocation
laws. It is important to understand that the defence of provocation is not
based on sexuality. In 2011, the laws were amended to ensure words alone do not
amount to provocation unless exceptional circumstances exist. The laws were
strengthened making provocation as a whole harder to establish as a defence. To
date, these strengthened provocation laws have not been used in a murder trial
and only took effect in April 2011. The LNP remains tough on crime, however
given these laws are yet to be tested, does not intend to make any further
amendments to the provocation defence at this time. –Premier’s Team
2 hours ago · Like
Commentator: If this is the case then
what your goverment is allowing as exceptional circumstances over 162 thousand
people disagree with you and that number is growing.
29 minutes ago · Like
Paul Kelly Mr Newman, what
you have said is not correct. The Gay panic defence is not a concoction of the
provocation laws. See the High Court case of Malcom Thomas Green v The Queen
[1997] HCA 50. The homosexual advance defence in provocation is real and
has been utilised and discussed in many cases. Homosexual advance was brought
up in two separate cases in Maryborough within a year in this state. How can
you and your government representatives continue to say that this is not a real
defence.This is just a very unhelpful distraction. The effect of the law is
unbalanced and does not in effect show even application or effect. Saying that
it is still to be tested simply means that one will wait for another incident
of gay bashing leading to death in which the accused again tries to raise this
awful defence.
2 seconds ago · Like
background
Greetings,
This
is Fr Paul Kelly, Catholic Priest from Maryborough, Queensland. I write to ask for your support and also for
you to distribute this issue as widely as possible. The law in Queensland
unwittingly tolerates ingrained bigotry and intolerance in the area of the
defence of provocation for murder. I am campaigning to close this common law
loophole in this State. I have included
below an explanation of the background to this and how it does fit with
Catholic teachings.
i
hope the following text might be helpful as a resource
An
archaic defence that belongs in the dark ages
by
Father
Paul Kelly
In
July 2008 I was shocked when I received a call from the police telling me that
my parish church of Saint Mary’s, in Maryborough, Queensland, was a crime
scene.
A
man was found dead by parishioners as they arrived for a morning communion
liturgy. It was devastating and shocking. I and my parishioners followed the
case closely. Very soon, two suspects were caught. Our church security cameras
caught the events of the terrible bashing.
I
was appalled when it was claimed that an alleged homosexual advance was a reason given for the man being bashed and left
lying overnight in the church grounds. I
was likewise appalled when I found that an alleged or perceived homosexual advance (of even the most minor
gesture or touch) can be used as a partial defence in a murder case in
Queensland (and also to an extent in NSW).
What
reason could justify a bashing that leads to someone’s death?
In
these two states, “non-violent homosexual advance” can be used as a defence to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter. In every other state, this partial defence in
cases of murder, known as “gay panic” or
“homosexual advance,” is a loophole that has been mercifully closed. In NSW the the defence is also available.
pAny violence that is not proportionate to the threat is excessive by
definition. A gentle touching could rightly be gently pushed away but not a
cause for violent and repeated bashing
unto death. This is only common sense.
But
in Queensland, the law hasn’t changed. And it deserves to banished from the books. I was shocked and disgusted when the mother
of the victim who died at the church felt
obliged by these allegations about her son, who after all was the victim in this case, to speak up in the media saying he
wasn’t gay.
The
fact that a mother felt she needed to explain that these allegations were false indicates the strength of even the
suggestion of it in the minds of many people. I felt strongly that she shouldn’t even need
to be defending this. Even if a person
did some gesture or touch, I could not see why this could in any way mitigate against a violent bashing
that leads to death.
I
was utterly dismayed in October last year when gay panic was raised in a different murder trial, this time in the death
of Stephen John Ward. The assailant
allegedly bashed the victim 20 to 30 times and dumped him in bushland.
Although the final decision in that case turned on other matters, the reason for the bashing being alleged gay panic
was raised.
This
glaring gap in the idea that all people are equal before the law needs to be closed.
It would be quite unacceptable if a man bashed a woman to death and then
argued that he bashed her because she
allegedly “came on to him” and he reacted badly to it.
It would be howled down as intolerable. In fact, it was howled down recently overseas: recently in New Zealand,
the defence of provocation was totally
removed by the government after a violent man tried to use provocation to explain the bashing death of his wife. So
too should a claim that some kind of
sexual advance by a member of the same sex could provoke extreme violence.
If a
woman could use the excuse that she bashed a man to death because she reacted violently to his advances, there would
be a lot of very scared men around. It
is ludicrous.
I
wrote twice to the Attorney-General’s department in Queensland. The response I received indicated that some changes were
being looked at and implemented. But
they did not want to entirely close the loophole because the laws about provocation that govern it might be able to be
used by a battered spouse who defends
themself violently after an initial touching which they (from previous experience) know to be the forerunner of
greater violence. However, the cases I
have followed are nothing like that. The battered spouse defence actually is
covered in another part of the Code of Queensland law and has been dealt with in special sections of the
law of other states, namely Victoria.
IT
has been noted that battered spouses who kill are acting more in self-defence rather than provocation. This illustrates the hubris shown by the
previous Queensland government.
This
loophole is dangerous. It doesn’t need to be a gay advance, it could be simply an action mistaken to be gay advance.
You don’t even need to be gay, you could
be mistaken to be gay.
An
accused could also be merely making up the story that he was the victim of a homosexual
advance. who is to tell. it is crazy. It
also puts the deceased person on trial and makes their actions the focus of the matter rather than the violence and extent
of the actions of the offender.
Some
have expressed surprise that a Roman Catholic Priest would be advocating this change to the law. However, this really
reflects a poor understanding of the
Catholic Church’s teaching. The Church teaches that: “…(Men and women with homosexual tendencies) must be accepted with
respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
If this teaching doesn’t relate to standing up against hatred, violence
or killing of homosexual people, I don’t
know what it would mean!
This
is an issue about ordinary human rights that apply to all people, irrespective of sexuality. No person of goodwill would advocate violence
or killing of homosexuals, irrespective
of one’s moral beliefs. Let’s change this law.
Father
Kelly has re-started a petition addressed to Campbell Newman to change the
Queensland law. see also this link: http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/eliminate-the-gay-panic-defence-from-queensland-law-gaypanic
Special
update note:
I
have annotated some responses to the Qld attorney General's bizzare comments in
a recent ABC radio interview: http://australianprovocation.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/attorney-general-jarrod-bleijie.html
Sunday, 15 July 2012
The Attorney General - Jarrod Bleijie.
Interview on 612ABC in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
10
July 2012 , 11:58 AM
(I
have also inserted some pertinent endnote comments in brackets at different
points. These are my sincere and candid observations, Fr. Paul Kelly).
[The top law officer for the State, the
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Jarrod Bleijie was on this morning’s
show to discuss a number of issues. Steve Austin interviewed him.] This is part of that interview:
(Interviewer, Steve Austin): In 2010 and
2011, two highly publicized murder trials took place in Maryborough in
Queensland and resulted in convictions of manslaughter instead of murder.
Defendants in both cases alleged a gay guy made an unwarranted homosexual
advance; it’s known as the "gay panic defence". And you’ve been called on by a
number of people to remove provocation from the Queensland statute as a defence
in what are termed “gay panic cases” will you do that?
(A.G. Jarrod Bleijie): Well, look, I have received all that and I
note there was a petition and I made comments about it at the time. Can I just
make the point, though, for your listeners, this is a criminal code element,
provocation, it is not the ‘gay panic defence’.[1]
This defence is open to any Queenslander
that has this issue.[2]
Now you’ve raised two issues that its been used in the past. But it’s, and I accuse the former Government of using
this as a bit of a political football.[3]
Because, although the former Attorney
General also said it’s not a gay panic defence, then he released all these
press releases “the Gay Panic Defence”, It’s not. It’s a criminal code element
in the criminal code and it’s a defence to murder in terms of provocation. [4]
I have, at this point in time, no plan to
overhaul it because it was overhauled a couple of years ago, and it hasn’t been
used, that particular amendment hasn’t been used when it was introduced in
2011.[5]
So, I don’t have any particular… I’m not of
the mind at the moment to fundamentally change it because you don’t just go
around because of petitions changing the criminal code. It’s a serious matter, you
have to be careful when you do it. And I think what we need to do is wait till
the 2011 amendments that were introduced to see what impact they've had. But,
I have seen the, I have received the correspondence and I have talked to people
about it.
(Interviewer, Steve Austin): There were
two cases, though, where the defendants said someone made an unwarranted
homosexual advance on them and it resulted and their subsequent assault or
killing of that person resulted in a manslaughter (conviction) instead of a
murder (conviction), are you entirely happy with that scenario? Personally, I
mean, at a personal level Jarrod, are you happy with that?
(A.G. Jarrod Bleijie): Of course I am not happy with any of those
situations, but if it had of been an unwanted sexual advance from anyone else I
wonder whether you would even be talking to me about it.
(Interviewer, Steve Austin): But you
wouldn’t beat them to death for it ! (nervous,
incredulous laugh),
(A.G. Jarrod Bleijie): If it just had of been a man or a woman
relying on that provision of the criminal code, I wonder if the media would be
at all interested in it?
(Interviewer, Steve Austin): Well, yes you
would, because someone’s been beaten to death!
(A.G. Jarrod Bleijie): Well,
yes but it’s a Criminal Code … its circumstantial .. it depends on the circumstances, each case
has to be assessed on its merit. [6]
There has been a huge international media
profile behind the two cases that you talked about, but at the moment the
Government has no plans to do it, we don’t advocate, obviously for any violence against anyone in
Queensland, we don't support it, but we have to be very careful, I’m just
saying to you as the A.G, we have to be very careful when we meddle with the
Criminal Code and the amendments of course that were introduced in 2011 said that
words alone were not provocation and so I am satisfied that there were
amendments and supported by the law reform commission, mind you, that were moved in 2011, and I am not willing
to gamble on those amendments until we have seen them play out and we haven’t
seen them because they just haven’t because they haven’t been used yet.[7]
(Interviewer, Steve Austin): So you are
using the Law Reform Commission as your guide in this case?[8]
(A.G. Jarrod Bleijie): Yeah, well the Law Reform Commission did
conduct an extensive review over many, many months on this particular issue.
The
full audio of this interview, of which part is transcribed above, is found here:
[1] The attorney General is being very unhelpful
here. He should know very well that the law is not merely found on the face of
the words in a statute or a code of law, but the law is found by the operation
of both the legislation and common law (or case law) which interprets the
legislation. Common law defences are available unless excluded by the wording
and interpretation of the legislation. The attorney General is causing
unnecessary confusion here by implying that the defence of “homosexual advance”
is not available in Queensland law because it clearly has been and clearly still IS a partial defence under this section. No one would seriously
dispute it. Numerous cases have shown that. The fact that you cannot find the
word “gay panic” or “homosexual advance”
does not at all mean that it is unavailable as a partial defence
under this state’s Code of Criminal Law. It is very much available. I think the A.G. knows this and it is
ridiculous to hide behind semantics. The former A.G. of the previous Queensland Labor government tried the same distracting line, but eventually dropped it as more and more people signed the petition and it became obvious that no one was falling for this irrelevant quibbling about words.
[2] This is also
an unhelpful blurring of the issue. It
is disingenuous to say this, as whilst it is theoretically available to all, in
practical effect this law has operated very unevenly and has been to the
disadvantage of homosexual men who are victims of crime, and also racial
minorities and also, (in very rare cases), where it has been used to justify the
killing of women by men the section has been swiftly removed due to massive
public uproar that it is a terrible and unacceptable law.
[3] This is hardly the case. The previous government was initially just as
resistant to dealing with the issue.
[4] The previous Attorney General could not keep brazenly asserting that
there was no such thing as a homosexual advance defence, and so he eventually
had to acknowledge it and announce an overhaul.
[5] This is where the contradictions come in,. Does the present A.G.
acknowledge WHY this particular section was overhauled? IT was because of
problems with the homosexual advance defence. However, it wasn’t sufficient
then and the defence is still available in a different form.
[6] The above interaction is really absolutely appalling. The A.G. seems to
be suggesting that the media is only making a big deal of it because it was an
alleged gay advance and he is suggesting, breathtakingly, that the public would
not be worried about this issue if a woman was beaten to death because she made
an unwanted sexual advance towards a man or if a man was beaten to death by a
woman because he had made an unwanted sexual advance. The interviewer is
obviously astounded by this and disagrees with his implication and suggests
that in any of these cases it would hardly be a reason to beat someone to death.
[7] The AG seems to be
content to just wait and see if people plead this defence and have possibly
more cases use this defence before doing anything. It doesn’t seem acceptable because
this will mean that nothing further will be done until the section again pleads
homosexual advance. Also, this a bit
contradictory because he is now implicitly accepting that this defence which he
seems to be suggesting does not exist is actually something they need to wait
and see whether reforms have fixed the problems with this supposedly non
existant defence. It is ridiculous. It is not being open and transparent with
the issue.
[8] The interviewer is being very observant
here. He appears to be aware that The AG is ignoring a more recent Expert Panel
inquiry and report by JA Jerrard BA,LLB, LLM, QC that concluded that more
adjustments to this section of the code really is warranted to protect against problems
relating to the ‘homosexual advance’ issue. http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/134275/report-to-the-AG-20120117.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)