CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Referral of the inquiry
1.1
On 10 May 2012, the Senate referred to the Legal and Constitutional
Affairs References Committee the matter of the detention of Indonesian minors
in Australia, for inquiry and report by 28 June 2012. The Senate subsequently
agreed to extend the reporting date for the inquiry to 4 October 2012.[1]
1.2
The terms of reference for the inquiry were:
(a) whether any Indonesian minors are currently being held in Australian
prisons, remand centres or detention centres where adults are also held, and
the appropriateness of that detention;
(b) what information the Australian authorities possessed or had knowledge
of when it was determined that a suspect or convicted person was a minor;
(c) whether there have been cases where information that a person is a minor
was not put before the court;
(d) what checks and procedures exist to ensure that evidence given to an
Australian authority or department about the age of a defendant/suspect is
followed up appropriately;
(e)
the relevant procedures across agencies relating to cases where there is
a suggestion that a minor has been imprisoned in an adult facility; and
(f) options for reparation and repatriation of any minor who has been charged
(contrary to current government policy) and convicted.
Background
1.3
The number of individuals arriving by boat to seek asylum in Australia
has increased markedly since 2008.[2]
The Suspected Irregular Entry Vessels (SIEV) that these asylum seekers travel
on are generally crewed by Indonesian nationals, predominantly from poor
fishing communities across the Indonesian archipelago.[3]
Some of these boat crew are juveniles at the time they are intercepted by
Australian authorities. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has
suggested that minors can be specifically targeted for use as crew in the
smuggling of migrants by sea.[4]
1.4
Boat crew responsible for bringing asylum seekers into Australia can be
prosecuted for people smuggling offences under Commonwealth law. While minors
are generally not prosecuted for these offences, determining the age of a crew
member is not straightforward, meaning that there is the potential for minors
suspected of people smuggling offences to be inadvertently charged as adults.
The policy of not prosecuting minors may also create an incentive for adult
boat crew facing people smuggling charges to claim to be minors.[5]
1.5
Several high profile cases have highlighted the significance of this
issue, including cases where convicted people smugglers have been released from
prison and returned to Indonesia after new evidence suggested that they were
likely to have been underage at the time of committing offences.[6]
The joint submission to the inquiry from the Attorney-General's Department
(AGD) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) (AGD/AFP submission) noted the
complexity of these cases, and stated that the Australian Government has
'sought to balance the need to appropriately penalise people smuggling activity
against the [government's] primary obligations to protect the interests of
children held in Australian facilities'.[7]
Legislative framework for people
smuggling offences
1.6
The primary offence of people smuggling, committed where a person
organises or facilitates the bringing, coming to or the entry into Australia of
another person who is a non-citizen and has no lawful right to come to
Australia, is contained in section 233A of the Migration Act 1958
(Migration Act). This offence attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years
imprisonment or 1,000 penalty units, or both.
1.7
The Migration Act also contains several aggravated people smuggling
offences, including the aggravated offence of smuggling at least five
non-citizens who have no lawful right to come to Australia.[8]
This offence attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment or 2,000
penalty units, or both. Aggravated people smuggling offences also attract
mandatory minimum penalties; however, these mandatory minimum penalties do not apply
if it is established on the balance of probabilities that the person was aged
less than 18 years when the offence was committed.[9]
1.8
It has been recently reported that the Attorney‑General has issued
a directive that suspected people smugglers who are 'first-time offenders and
low-culpability crew' should not be charged with the aggravated offences that attract
mandatory minimum penalties.[10]
Prosecution policy for minors
suspected of people smuggling offences
1.9
The decision to charge an individual with a people smuggling offence is
made by the AFP, and the case is then referred to the Commonwealth Director of
Public Prosecutions (CDPP) to conduct the prosecution in accordance with the Prosecution
Policy of the Commonwealth:
Under the Prosecution Policy, prosecuting a minor is regarded
as a severe step and regard must be had to the public interest. In deciding
whether the public interest warrants the prosecution of a minor, a range of
factors are taken into account, including the seriousness of the offence, the
sentencing options available in the relevant children's court of the State or
Territory, the minor's family circumstances, and whether prosecution would have
an unduly harsh effect on the minor. The AFP applies the same standard to its
decision to charge individuals with people smuggling offences.[11]
1.10
It has been the policy of the CDPP since late 2010 that minors should
only be prosecuted with people smuggling offences in exceptional circumstances,
on the basis of their significant involvement in a people smuggling venture
(for example, if the person is involved in the death or serious harm of another
person), or involvement in multiple ventures.[12]
In addition, since July 2011, CDPP policy has been that it does not oppose bail
in relation to people smuggling cases where the defendant claims to be a minor.[13]
Process of detention, charge and
prosecution of people smuggling cases
1.11
Several government agencies are involved in the interception, detention,
charging and prosecution of boat crew suspected of people smuggling offences. A brief
summary of the typical process involved in cases where boat crew claim to be
minors is outlined below.
1.12
Vessels carrying asylum seekers are intercepted by either the Australian
Customs or Border Protection Service (Customs) or the Royal Australian Navy
(Navy) and the passengers, including Indonesian boat crew, are transferred to
Australian facilities on Christmas Island for initial processing.[14]
Once the passengers have been transported to Christmas Island and undergone
initial processing by Customs, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship
(DIAC) conducts intelligence gathering interviews and age assessment interviews
for any crew claiming to be minors. If DIAC assesses an individual as being
under 18 years of age and no exceptional circumstances apply, that individual
is returned to their country of origin.[15]
1.13
If DIAC assesses an individual to be an adult, their case may be
referred to the AFP to commence a criminal investigation. A Criminal Justice
Stay Certificate is often issued by the Attorney-General to prevent individuals
from leaving Australia until the AFP finishes conducting its investigations.[16]
1.14
The AFP may undertake additional age assessment procedures (outlined
further below), if there is still uncertainty regarding an individual's age. If
a wrist x‑ray is undertaken and indicates that a person is a minor, the
AFP ceases its investigation and the individual is returned to their country of
origin.[17]
If, on the basis of all the evidence before it, the AFP still considers that an
individual is an adult and proceeds to charge the individual, it will refer the
matter to the CDPP, which then decides whether the prosecution should proceed
on the basis of the brief of evidence prepared by the AFP.[18]
1.15
If the age of the individual is still contested and raised as an issue
in court, an age determination hearing is held, which determines the age of an
individual for the purposes of criminal justice proceedings.[19]
The court must decide 'on the balance of probabilities' whether a suspect was
an adult at the time of offence, and can take into account various forms of
evidence in relation to the age of a defendant, including information or
documents obtained from Indonesia.[20]
In such cases, a court ruling that an individual is under 18 has led to the
CDPP abandoning its prosecution, whereas a finding that a defendant is an adult
has meant the prosecution can continue. In its submission to this inquiry, the
CDPP advised that it considers the likely result of an age determination
hearing in deciding whether to proceed cases to prosecution:
Where the CDPP has not been satisfied that a court would be
likely to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities on all the evidence
available that the defendant was an adult, the CDPP has discontinued the prosecution.[21]
Age assessment processes for
Indonesian boat crew
1.16
The AGD/AFP submission notes that a significant number of boat crew on
people smuggling vessels claim to be minors, either on arrival or during the
course of an investigation or prosecution, and that it is common for crew to
repeatedly change their claims regarding age.[22]
In cases where an Indonesian crew member suspected of committing a people
smuggling offence claims to be a minor, Australian officials undertake
processes to attempt to ascertain the age of the individual and assess the
validity of their claim. If DIAC's initial assessment is that the individual is
likely to be an adult and the case is referred to the AFP, further age
assessment procedures can be utilised.
1.17
Under section 3ZQB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Crimes Act), an
investigating official may carry out a prescribed procedure in relation to a
person reasonably suspected of a Commonwealth offence (either with the person's
consent or on application to a magistrate) to determine whether or not the
person was under 18 years at the time of the alleged commission of the offence.
The current prescribed procedure for age determination, as stipulated in
regulation 6C of the Crimes Regulations 1990, is a radiograph taken by 'an
appropriately qualified person' of 'the hand or wrist of the person whose age
is to be determined' (wrist x-ray).
Recent policy changes relating to
age determination
1.18
In February 2011, the then President of the Australian Human Rights
Commission (AHRC), the Hon Catherine Branson QC, wrote to the Attorney-General,
the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, to express concern about the use of wrist x-rays
for age determination purposes. The Attorney-General requested that the issue
be considered by a working group of Australian Government agencies including
AGD, the AFP, the CDPP and DIAC.[23]
On 8 July 2011, the Australian Government announced that a range of
measures would be used to supplement the standard wrist x-ray procedure when
assessing the age of accused people smugglers. These additional measures are:
- offering dental x-rays as a supplementary procedure to wrist
x-rays;
- offering focussed age interviews conducted under caution by AFP
officers; and
- the AFP taking steps as early as possible to seek information
from the individual's country of origin, including birth certificates, where
age is contested.[24]
1.19
In July 2011, the government also commenced a policy of proactively
giving the benefit of the doubt in relation to age where the available evidence
cannot clearly establish that the person is a minor.[25]
This policy is complemented by the introduction in December 2011 of a removal
policy, whereby an individual can be returned to Indonesia solely based on
DIAC's initial age assessment, without the case being referred to the AFP.[26]
Places of detention for crew who
claim to be minors
1.20
In its submission, DIAC explained that boat crew who claim to be minors
are accommodated in a low security alternative place of detention (APOD) within
the immigration detention network, rather than a higher security immigration
detention centre (IDC), and that all boat crew are initially held in an APOD on
Christmas Island upon arrival.[27]
It was noted, however, that in some instances DIAC may decide that it would be
in the best interests of an individual to be held in facilities with other
adults (for example, to be near family members or fellow crew members).[28]
DIAC stressed that it seeks to ensure that crew who are assessed as minors are
housed in facilities appropriate for minors; nonetheless, in cases where a
person claims to be a minor but the available evidence suggests that the person
is an adult, 'the interests of the person are balanced carefully against the
interests of other minors in determining appropriate housing arrangements'.[29]
1.21
Where DIAC assesses an individual as a minor to be returned to their
country of origin, the individual remains in an APOD until return to their
country can be arranged. In cases where DIAC assesses an individual to be an
adult and refers their case to the AFP, those individuals may be transferred to
an IDC while the AFP finalises its investigation.[30]
Once charges have been laid, the individual is transferred to the custody of
the relevant state or territory correctional authorities. The AFP has made
clear that, in such cases, it provides the relevant correctional authorities
with all available information concerning the person's claims to age, to enable
the correctional authorities to manage that person appropriately.[31]
Where a case is prosecuted and bail is granted while age is still in dispute,
the individual is returned to immigration detention and housed in facilities
appropriate for minors.[32]
Previous inquiries and reviews
1.22
There have been a number of parliamentary and government-led inquiries
in the last 12 months which have addressed the issue of Indonesian people
smuggling crew who may be minors.
Senate Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Legislation Committee inquiries
1.23
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
(Legislation Committee) has recently inquired into, and reported on, two
private senator's bills introduced by Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, which would
impact upon the detention and prosecution of Indonesians arrested on people
smuggling charges, including potential minors. These are:
-
the Crimes Amendment (Fairness for Minors) Bill 2011, which seeks
to amend the Crimes Act to establish timeframes and evidentiary protocols for
the age determination and prosecution of suspected people smugglers who may be
minors; and
-
the Migration Amendment (Removal of Mandatory Minimum Penalties)
Bill 2012, which seeks to remove the mandatory minimum penalties associated
with aggravated people smuggling offences under the Migration Act.
1.24
In its report on the Crimes Amendment (Fairness for Minors) Bill 2011,
the Legislation Committee recommended that the Senate should not pass the bill,
but also recommended that the Australian Government should:
- review the AFP's procedural and legislative requirements in
dealing with persons suspected of people smuggling offences, with a view to facilitating
the prompt laying of charges where appropriate;
-
introduce legislation to expressly provide that, where a person
raises the issue of age during criminal proceedings, the prosecution bears the
burden of proof to establish that the person was an adult at the time of the
relevant offence; and
- review options to support the capacity of the legal
representatives of persons accused of people smuggling offences who claim to be
underage at the time of the offence to gather evidence of age from their place
of origin.[33]
1.25
In its report on the Migration Amendment (Removal of Mandatory Minimum
Penalties) Bill 2012, the Legislation Committee recommended that the Senate
should not pass the Bill, but recommended that the Australian Government
should:
- review the operation of the mandatory minimum penalties which
apply to people smuggling offences; and
- conduct further people smuggling deterrence and awareness raising
activities in Indonesia.[34]
Australian Human Rights Commission
inquiry and report
1.26
Following concerns that the age assessment processes used by Australian
authorities may have led to the prosecution of children for people smuggling
offences, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) announced on
21 November 2011 that it would conduct an inquiry into the treatment
of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who say they are
children.[35]
The inquiry received public submissions and held hearings in which key
Commonwealth agencies and medical experts were examined.[36]
On 27 July 2012, the AHRC tabled its report titled An age of
uncertainty: Inquiry into the treatment of individuals suspected of people
smuggling offences who say that they are children.[37]
In summary, the AHRC report found:
- wrist and dental x-rays are not sufficiently informative of
whether a person is over 18 years of age;
- any use of radiation for age assessment purposes should first be
justified as required by internationally accepted standards;
- there is no known biomedical marker of age which is sufficiently
informative of age to be used in criminal proceedings;
- a multidisciplinary approach to age assessment is no more
accurate than medical or non-medical approaches—consequently, a wide margin of
benefit of the doubt should be used for individuals who are being assessed; and
- focused age interviews, if conducted appropriately, and if they
afford a wide margin of benefit of the doubt to individuals who say they are
children, are able to provide valuable information about a person's age.[38]
1.27
The AHRC report also included a number of adverse findings regarding the
conduct of Commonwealth agencies in relation to the age assessment, detention,
investigation and prosecution of persons accused of people smuggling offences
who claim to be children. In particular, it found that 'many young Indonesians
who it is now accepted were likely to have been children at the time of their
apprehension spent long periods of time in immigration detention or in adult
correctional facilities'.[39]
Based on these findings, the AHRC concluded that 'the Australian Government
failed to respect the rights of children'.[40]
1.28
The AHRC report made 17 recommendations, mainly in relation to the age
assessment and the prosecution of persons accused of people smuggling offences
who claim to be children. The AHRC recommendations included the following:
- amendments to the Migration Act (and if appropriate the Crimes
Act) should be made to make clear that individuals claiming to be under 18
years of age must be deemed a minor unless a relevant decision-maker is
'positively satisfied' or, in the case of a judicial decision-maker, satisfied
on the balance of probabilities, that the person is over 18 years of age;
- persons suspected of people smuggling offences claiming to be
children 'who [are] not manifestly an adult' should be provided with 'an independent
guardian';
- amendments to the Crimes Act should be made to restrict or limit
procedures using x-rays as part of a prescribed procedure to determine age;
- legislative amendments should be made to ensure that expert
evidence of the analysis of wrist x-rays is not admissible in legal proceedings
as evidence that persons are over 18 years of age;
-
investigating officials must obtain the consent of persons
suspected of having committed a Commonwealth offence to participate in an age
assessment interview;
- persons claiming to be underage 'who [are] not manifestly an
adult' should be offered legal advice prior to any age assessment interview
intended to be relied on in a legal proceeding;
-
immediate efforts should be made to obtain documentary evidence
of age from the country of origin of persons suspected of people smuggling who
claim to be children when a decision to investigate or prosecute is made;
- the Attorney-General should set and implement an appropriate time
limit between the apprehension of a person suspected of people smuggling and
the bringing of a charge or charges against him or her;
- the Commonwealth should only in exceptional circumstances oppose
bail where 'a person who claims to be a minor, and is not manifestly an adult,
has been charged with people smuggling';
- the Attorney-General should consult with the CDPP concerning
procedures to ensure that the Commonwealth does not adduce expert evidence in
legal proceedings where the acceptance by the court of evidence would be
inconsistent with an accused person receiving a fair trial;
-
AGD should establish and maintain a process whereby there is
regular and frequent review of the continuing need for each Criminal Justice
Stay Certificate given by the Attorney-General or his or her delegate; and
-
the Australian Government should remove Australia's reservation
to Article 37(c)[41]
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[42]
1.29
The AHRC circulated the findings of its inquiry to AGD, the AFP and
the CDPP before reporting, and included as appendices to its published report letters
from those agencies responding to the AHRC's conclusions. The responses noted
recent changes to the policies relating to persons accused of people smuggling
offences who claim to be underage. The responses also disputed a number of the
findings made by the AHRC, particularly the conduct of Commonwealth agencies in
relation to their reliance on wrist x-ray evidence in age assessment and their disinclination
to take into account other information regarding the age of suspects.[43]
Attorney-General's review of
convicted people smuggling crew
1.30
On 2 May 2012, the Attorney-General announced that AGD would undertake a
review of 24 cases of Indonesian nationals convicted of people smuggling, in
which concerns had been raised that the nationals may be minors.[44]
The number of cases to be reviewed was later increased to 28.[45]
1.31
The review involved re-examining the cases using the new age
determination processes introduced in 2011, as well as:
-
the AFP seeking verified age documents from the Indonesian
National Police (INP);
- DIAC conducting age assessment interviews for crew who consent to
be interviewed;
-
the CDPP providing relevant case information and chronologies to
AGD for each crew member; and
-
the Indonesian Embassy and Consulates-General assisting with
providing age documentation where crew have consented to consular notification
and assistance.[46]
Results of the AGD review
1.32
The Attorney-General announced the results of the review progressively
between 17 May 2012 and 29 June 2012.[47]
The final outcomes of the review were:
- 15 crew were released early from prison on licence as there was
doubt they may have been minors on arrival in Australia;
-
two crew were released early on parole;
- three crew completed their non-parole periods; and
- eight crew remain in prison to serve their sentences, as there
was no evidence available to support claims they were minors on arrival in
Australia.[48]
1.33
Of the crew released from prison early, the Attorney-General advised:
This is not a pardon. These individuals crewed people
smuggling vessels that came to Australia, all of them went to court and were
convicted of that offence. This is a decision to give these individuals the
benefit of the doubt about their age when intercepted, after considering
further information that was not available earlier.[49]
1.34
The release of these crew members has been welcomed by the
Indonesian Government, as evidenced by statements from the President of
the Republic of Indonesia, His Excellency Dr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
AC.[50]
Speaking at bilateral talks in Darwin on 3 July 2012, President
Yudhoyono also urged that the repatriation of any remaining 'underage seafarers'
be accelerated, and noted that there are a further 54 individuals whom
Indonesia hopes will be released from detention in Australia.[51]
Report of the Expert Panel on
Asylum Seekers
1.35
On 13 August 2012, an Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers (Expert Panel),
consisting of Retired Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston AC, AFC, Mr Paris Aristotle AM,
and Professor Michael L'Estrange AO, presented a report to the Australian
Government, outlining policy options to prevent asylum seekers risking their
lives on dangerous boat journeys to Australia.[52]
The report made 22 recommendations, including one recommendation pertinent
to the treatment of Indonesian boat crew on vessels carrying asylum seekers to
Australia.
1.36
The Expert Panel recommended that bilateral cooperation on asylum seeker
issues with Indonesia should be advanced as a matter of urgency, including in
relation to possible changes to Australian law concerning Indonesian minors and
others who crew unlawful boat voyages from Indonesia to Australia.[53]
The Expert Panel stated:
Changes to Australian law in relation to Indonesian minors
and others crewing unlawful boat voyages from Indonesia to Australia should be
pursued with options including crew members being dealt with in Australian
courts with their sentences to be served in Indonesia, discretion being
restored to Australian courts in relation to sentencing, or returning those
crews to the jurisdiction of Indonesia.[54]
1.37
The Australian Government has agreed in principle to all of the Expert
Panel's recommendations.[55]
The Attorney-General indicated on 15 August 2012 that the government may review
the mandatory sentencing regime for people smuggling offences in accordance
with the recommendation of the Expert Panel.[56]
Recent media reports claim that the Attorney-General issued a directive on
27 August 2012, instructing the CDPP not to prosecute boat crew with
aggravated people smuggling offences unless: they are repeat offenders; they
had a role beyond simply being a crew member; or a death occurred in relation
to the people-smuggling venture.[57]
Several prosecutions for aggravated people smuggling cases have reportedly been
discontinued as a result of this directive.[58]
Conduct of the inquiry
1.38
The committee wrote to 143 organisations and individuals, inviting
submissions by 31 May 2012. Details of the inquiry were also placed on the
committee's website at www.aph.gov.au/senate_legalcon.
1.39
The committee received 29 submissions, and all public submissions were
made available on the committee's website. A list of submissions to the inquiry
is at Appendix 1. The committee held a public hearing in Canberra on 24 August
2012. A list of witnesses who appeared at the hearing is at Appendix 2, and
copies of the Hansard transcript are available through the committee's
website.
Acknowledgement
1.40
The committee thanks those organisations and individuals who made
submissions and gave evidence at the public hearing.
Structure of the report
1.41
This report is divided into five chapters.
1.42
Chapter 2 examines case statistics provided by Commonwealth agencies
regarding cases since 2008 in which boat crew on asylum seeker vessels have
claimed to be minors, and discusses the appropriateness of detention in these
cases and relevant human rights issues.
1.43
Chapter 3 discusses the age assessment processes undertaken by
Commonwealth agencies during the investigation and prosecution of alleged
people smugglers who claim to be minors.
1.44
Chapter 4 discusses options for the repatriation and reparation of
individuals who have been wrongly convicted or subjected to long periods of
detention in Australia, only to be subsequently given the benefit of the doubt
regarding their age.
1.45
Chapter 5 sets out the committee's views and recommendations for the
inquiry.
Note on references
1.46
References to the committee Hansard are to the proof Hansard.
Page numbers may vary between the proof and the official Hansard
transcript.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page