From: Hailes, Sonia (SEN) on behalf of Legal and Constitutional, Committee (SEN) Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2001 10:08 AM To: Wilson, Christine (SEN) Subject: FW: Subn MANDATORY SENTENCING -----Original Message----- From: Robert Wesley Smith [mailto:rwesley@ozemail.com.au] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 9:51 AM To: legcon.sen@aph.gov.au Subject: Subn MANDATORY SENTENCING The Secretary Rob Wesley-Smith Senate Legal and Constitutional C'tee Box 2155 Darwin NT 0801 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 rwesley@ozemail.com.au legcon.sen@aph.gov.au 08 89832113 0419 807175 30/8/2001 Dear Senators Mandatory Sentencing Inquiry Mandatory Sentencing is obviously a stupid policy which panders to the fears of ignorance, devalues the role of the Judiciary, encourages incarceration, is unfair, imprisons those sections of the community the government aims the particular mandatory regime against, is discriminatory because it is not a uniform policy. The NT's CLP government has, I believe, deliberately aimed this regime to pander to the base instincts of those elements of the NT population on which it depends for its vote. It has been parsimonious in introducing alternative sentencing regimes, and won't spend enough on aboriginal health, education housing etc. Neither does the Federal government, given the standards of health, housing and education that apply. The policy transfers power in general from the judiciary to the police, but ... I am the first and main secretary of the nt council for civil liberties which was active 1975-83, and an activist for East Timor 1974 - now. As such I've fallen foul of the law as applied a few times. For example, I was violently arrested in September 1999 for "loitering", having stopped my car and gone onto the footpath when I saw a man being arrested with apparent violence. I called out "there's no need for that" and as the man was brought out past me and place in van I talked calmly to him to settle down. I was ordered to leave and it was indicated I should so far away that I could not observe. I declined to do this as I was on a public footpath and was not interfering with legitimate police duty. I was violently arrested, spent about 8 hours in the cells, and a superintendent came from his home to review the matter on request of the station sergeant, and I was told no charges would be preferred. I went to work in East Timor from October 99 to Feb 2000. I then found that I was served a summons to face charges of loitering and resist arrest. Several East Timor activists also faced charges resulting from police action against us in that key weeks of September 1999 when the UN was in the process of pulling out of East imor, and no Interfet was annonced. I believe it was the NT government which insisted on the prosecutions going ahead in a vindictive display against those who fought for justice. Since for a trivial matter which NT Police dismissed I was pursued, this indicates to me political involvement - and not for the first time. Why does the CLP Chief Minister nearly always hold the Police and AG portfolios? Although Mandatory Sentencing gives power to the Police over the Judiciary, here we see ultimate power reserved back by the political process. In my court case I virtually had to abandon going back to East Timor given the dates for 'mention' and the trial. I was found guilty of loitering and not guilty of resist arrest, despite the (Chief) Magistrate saying I was not loitering but I was when I refused to obey the police directive to go away. In another incident on the same day in September a police sergeant ripped off the top half of the dress of a dedicated activist, yet she also was prosecuted, yet she had done nothing violent. I think her charges were dismissed. She had to travel enormously to attend all her legal dates. The above is also why the new "Public Order and Anti-Social Act" is ridiculous and unnecessary for legitimate policy, as clearly there is almost unlimited police power to order people to move on or arrest. In the Sunday Territorian of 24 June 2001, quote: Mr Burke rejected Prime Minister John Howard's position that Mr Clark was entitled to the presumption of innocence. He said: "I beleive his leadership position with ATSIC is untenable with these sort of accusations. "If there was a politician in a similar state I imagine I would stand him down immediately." Now we know Mr Burke, currently AG, is currently convicted of contempt of court, yet he has refused to stand down, and has called an election before his appeal can be held. Is this a double standard or is it breathtaking ignorance? Should such a man be responsible for introducing laws to criminalise a lot of people? One could go on. Even the conservative NT News in its editorial of 29 June 2001 under the title 'Does One Size Fit All' questions whether differing allow ('represent') justice. Of course it may change its mind before polling day. I am happy to present this in person if you desire. Cheers Rob Wesley-Smith BRurSc