Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill 2007
Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes:
OBJECTIVES:
The object of the Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill is to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to provide that compulsory life sentences are to be imposed by a court on persons convicted of murdering police officers. A compulsory life sentence is to be imposed if the murder was committed while the police officer was executing his or her duties or as a consequence of, or in retaliation for, actions undertaken by any police officer.
COMMENTS:
The tragic suicides of young officers, the attempted suicide of a senior officer and the recent very public breakdown of another young officer are reminders to us all of how tough it is to be a police officer in 2007. Every day police officers kiss their loved ones goodbye and go to work, knowing the dangers that may confront them. Supporters of the bill argue that those convicted of murdering police officers do not deserve another chance to be free members of society. Murdered police officers do not have another chance at life and their killers should not have another chance at freedom. I would also mention, however, that it is grieving families, aside from those convicted and those who are murdered, who endure the pains of such actions.
Since 1995 at least 18 police officers have died as a result of duty-related incidents. These include five who were murdered in the course of carrying out their duty. Another four police officers are assaulted every single day, as a previous speaker has mentioned. It is unacceptable that people involved in some of these murders are now enjoying their freedom. That should change and this bill seeks to effect that change. There can be no clearer justification for this legislation than the fact that, since 1980, 11 officers have lost their lives as a result of the actions of offenders who have attacked police executing their duty to protect the community.
They are Sergeant Keith Haydon, shot by an offender on 24 November 1980; Constable Pashalis Katsivelas, shot by an escaping prisoner on 4 April 1984, from recollection, at Concord Hospital—a probationary constable, I am reminded; Sergeant Paul Quinn, shot by an offender following a pursuit on 30 March 1986; Constable Brett Sinclair, from injuries sustained whilst effecting an arrest on 25 October 1988; Constable Allan McQueen, shot whilst effecting an arrest of a man breaking into a motor vehicle only a few hundred metres from where we are now sitting on 5 May 1989; Senior Constable Peter Addison and Senior Constable Robert Spears, shot by an offender at Crescent Head as they got out of their vehicle to enter a home on 9 July 1995; Constable David Carty, stabbed during an affray in Western Sydney on 18 April 1997; Constable Peter Forsyth, stabbed whilst effecting an arrest on 28 February 1998; Senior Constable James Affleck, struck by a motor vehicle whilst deploying road spikes to stop a stolen car on 14 January 2001; and Constable Glenn McEnallay, shot by an offender at Matraville following a pursuit on 3 April 2002.
In the light of recent decisions relating to the murders of David Carty and Glen McEnallay it is apparent that there is strong community support for police and for the introduction of measures to deter offenders from assaulting and killing members. The bill is predicated upon a belief that police officers are rightfully owed a measure of protection by the community. This so for at least two reasons. First, police officers place themselves in positions of risk on behalf of the community. Second, an attack on a law enforcement officers strikes at the very core of our system of democratic government. Those who seek to harm the persons responsible for the enforcement of laws passed by our Parliament should be subject to special punishment.
That principle is already recognised in the Crimes Act. Section 58 of that Act imposes a higher maximum jail penalty for the offence of common assault of a police officer than is imposed for the same offence against an ordinary civilian. Indeed, the relative maximum penalties are five years and two years respectively. Surprisingly, and anomalously, the principle is not carried through by the Crimes Act to apply to more serious assaults that in fact inflict injury or permanent damage to officers. When police officers are in uniform on duty or have recalled themselves to duty they put themselves forward when others step back. They put themselves in danger and do so to protect you and me and citizens of the State. The law should recognise that to murder a police officer is a serious crime in this State. The Parliamentary Secretary for Police, who led for the Government, said:
The Government wants people who murder police officers to rot in prison; we have never resiled from that position.
Today Government members have the opportunity to stand by this commitment and that of former Premier Carr. He said:
I want those who murder police officers to go to gaol forever. I want those who murder police officers to go to the dingiest, darkest cell that exists in a prison system …
Government members have the opportunity to vote for this legislation, which will mean that those who murder police officers will rot in prison. There are certainly some contentious provisions that merit further examination. However, there are two aspects of this bill that do concern me. The first is: Is there any evidence that the likelihood of a compulsory life sentence would have any deterrent effect? I ask whether a compulsory life sentence can achieve reduced recidivism and increased rehabilitation in our society. Can a compulsory life sentence stop future acts of violence? Is the life of a police officer more valuable than the life of anyone else, such as a doctor treating a patient, teachers or others in the community?
If honourable members consider any aspect of my speech today I ask them to reflect on this one point: I remind them that the stark account of prison life presents powerful challenges in our liberal democracy. During my whole life, from the time I was a parole and probation officer as a young man through to all my years at Wesley Mission, I have visited numerous prisons around the country. In fact, at different times I have been detained in her Majesty’s finest. Most of them are characterised by routine, regulation, boredom and depression associated with serving a long-term sentence. They are also characterised by claustrophobia, noise, chaos and the real risk of being compelled to inhabit a very violent world, including not only other prisoners but also others who enter the prison. Inmates that I have talked to over the years inevitably possess low intelligence quotients or have suffered brain damage, frequently from extensive alcoholism, and mental illness. Critical criminologists and sociologists have long since documented the squalor and brutality associated with incarceration. Even in today’s society, public complacency generally surrounds the plight of the incarcerated.
The growing fear of crime, fuelled at least partially by the media, and the frustration with the seeming lack of positive results of rehabilitation provide public support for hardened policies. This trend has become amplified by the rhetoric of politicians who have found that being tough on crime is an unbeatable popular issue.
CONCLUSION:
However, with all of that said, with the limitations of our current prison system and acknowledging the absolute futility of long-term incarceration of individuals, there is no question in my mind that the Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill is needed. I commend the bill to the House.