NSW Intoxication-Fuelled Assault Laws in Parliamentary Limbo as Amendments Rejected

Monday 24 March 2014 @ 10.30 a.m. | Crime

Part of the NSW Government’s alcohol-fuelled violence reform package may now be in jeopardy, with the NSW Premier, Barry O’Farrell, rejecting the NSW Legislative Council's proposed amendments.

The Crimes Amendment (Intoxication) Bill 2014 was introduced to the Legislative Assembly on February 26 and passed on March 6.  However, Labor joined with the Green and the Shooters and Fishers Party in the Legislative Council to make some controversial amendments to the bill.  These have just been rejected by the Legislative Assembly, with the bill being once again sent back to the Legislative Council for further consideration.

The Original Bill

The Crimes Amendment (Intoxication) Bill 2014 creates various aggravated intoxication offences and imposes the following mandatory sentencing  regime under the Crimes Act 1900:

  • Section 35 (1AA) (Reckless grievous bodily harm when intoxicated in public and in company) - 5 years 
  • Section 35 (1A) (Reckless grievous bodily harm when intoxicated in public) -  4 years 
  • Section 35 (2A) (Reckless wounding when intoxicated in public and in company) - 4 years
  • Section 35 (3A) (Reckless wounding when intoxicated in public) - 3 years 
  • Section 60 (3B) (Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm to police officers when intoxicated in public) - 5 years
  • Section 60 (3C) (Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm to police officers during public disorder and when intoxicated in public) - 5 years

The Proposed Amendments

The Legislative Council’s amendments would instead mean only a single offence, 'reckless grievous bodily harm when intoxicated in public and in circumstances of gross violence', would carry a minimum sentence. The Courts would also be able to take 'special factors' into account in sentencing, including if a person has substantially assisted the investigation or if a person is between 18 and 21 years of age and has a 'substantially diminished ability to control the person’s behaviour in comparison with the norm'.

Backlash from Both Sides

Barry O’Farrell has slammed the proposed amendments as he rejected the changes:

"…it's unacceptable that you put through legislation that is not going to tackle this drug and alcohol-fuelled violence. That gives people a get out of jail card free [sic].  Labor is siding with the thugs and once again the Greens are siding with the drugs."

But Opposition Leader John Robertson says the amendments are based on Victorian legislation, and are designed to protect the community:

"Our amendments, the laws that we want to see passed by this place, protect victims… They make sure that the mandatory sentences are applied. They make sure that the courts will apply those laws, but they also make sure that there isn't a small pocket of the community that get caught up because those opposite want to play politics."

The Greens say they are supporting the Labor amendments as "the lesser of two evils," but hope that the Government will reject the bill altogether. Shooters and Fishers MP Robert Borsak says his party is supporting the changes because they think they go too far towards creating a nanny state.

Barry O’Farrell has also accused the Labor Party of having chosen to side with "the drunken and drug-addicted thugs responsible for those attacks". John Robertson accused the Premier of playing "cheap law-and-order politics for the TV camera" and taking instructions from the hotel industry.

Meanwhile Ralph Kelly, the father of Thomas Kelly, has told the Sydney Morning Herald the issue "shouldn’t be a political football". However, the rejection of the amendments mean the political fighting looks set to continue for the near future.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Sources:

Related Articles: