Anti-Terrorism Act 2005

Last updated

Anti-Terrorism Act 2005
Parliament of Australia
  • An Act to amend the law relating to terrorist acts, and for other purposes
Citation No. 127 of 2005
Territorial extent States and territories of Australia
Royal assent 3 November 2005
Legislative history
Bill titleAnti-Terrorism Bill 2005
Status: In force

The Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 (Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia, which is intended to hamper the activities of any potential terrorists in the country. The counter-terrorism law was passed on 6 December 2005. [1]

Contents

Background

History

The Bill was prepared by the Howard government in the wake of a series of terrorist attacks overseas, in particular London, with the stated intent of preventing such events from happening in Australia.

Due to the division of powers in Australia's constitution, the Bill needed the support of the states. An outline of the Bill was given in-principle support by the State Premiers.

The then Attorney General of Australia, Philip Ruddock, on advice from the Australian Federal Police that existing laws would not protect Australians from London-style terrorist attacks, [2] said that the new laws were needed. [3]

Prior to its reading in federal Parliament, a confidential draft of the legislation was published online by ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, who stated "Law of this significance made in this haste can't be good law". The Opposition and minor parties expressed concern that a Senate inquiry would not be given enough time to consider the new laws. [4] Prime Minister John Howard rejected the concern and criticised Stanhope, saying that "the premiers and the other chief minister did not deserve to be hijacked in relation to their ability to participate in consultation." [5] The public exposure saw elements of the Bill, including a 'shoot to kill' clause, criticised as excessive. Victorian Premier Steve Bracks noted the 'shoot to kill' clause had not been discussed at the Council of Australian Governments meeting where the draft laws were forged. Community concern arose that Muslims would be unfairly targeted by the new law. [6]

The Australian government planned for the Bill to be introduced, debated and passed on 1 November 2005 (Melbourne Cup race day). The Labor Opposition and the minor parties decried the paucity of time allowed for debate. The Prime Minister agreed to allow more time on the proviso that the Bill be passed before Christmas 2005.

The Bill became law on 6 December 2005. Measures for greater protection of free speech and greater scrutiny of the law's application, proposed at different stages by individual government members and Labor, were not accommodated. [6] Labor voted to support the Bill. The Greens and Australian Democrat senators voted against. [7]

Constitutional issues

The first three "chapters" of the Australian Constitution separate power between the executive, legislative and judicial arms of government. This "separation of powers" doctrine has been interpreted by the High Court in Lim v Minister for Immigration, [8] as granting an immunity for Australian Citizens from involuntary detention by the Government except as a consequence of a finding of criminal guilt before a court. There are some exceptions, such as the detention of a person following their arrest and before they are brought before a court, or whilst on remand awaiting trial where bail is refused. The Federal Government appears to have interpreted as Constitutional periodic detention for up to 48 hours and co-operated with State governments (which do not have the same entrenched separation of powers doctrine) to allow for detention up to 14 days. The Federal government also introduced "control orders" which allow for a range of restrictions to be placed on an individual (who has not been charged, let alone found guilty of any criminal offence) including subjecting that person to 12 months house arrest. [9]

Then Queensland Premier Peter Beattie announced that he had received advice that the blurring of boundaries between the executive and judicial powers was likely to be unconstitutional.[ citation needed ] This assertion was rejected by the then Prime Minister, John Howard: "Lawyers often have different opinions as to what the law means.". [10] Then federal Treasurer Peter Costello adopted a more cautious attitude, stating that "you never really know" the answer to the vexed question of constitutionality "until such time as the courts decide on these things".(SMH, 27 October 2005)[ full citation needed ] According to spokespeople for the then Prime Minister, his and the Treasurer's views were compatible, but some media outlets, including the Sydney Morning Herald, insinuated otherwise.[ citation needed ]

The Act

Shoot to kill clause

The "Shoot to kill" clause instructs police to treat people wanted under detention orders in the same way that an equivalent clause in the current law treats wanted suspects.

The clause in particular has raised the concern of some state premiers, the so-called "Shoot to kill" clause, where police may use lethal force if they perceive a threat to life. The clause was not put to the premiers in the original discussions between the States and Federal Governments. [11]

Law Council of Australia president John North, suggested that such powers were designed to protect police in the event of a mistaken fatal shooting such as that of Jean Charles de Menezes. [12]

John Howard has declared that the whole issue is a "misnomer, a furphy, a diversion," [13] but has suggested that changes to the clause are possible.

Reckless funding clause

As a result of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005, Division 103 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to provide funds to a person who may use those funds to facilitate or engage in a terrorist act. These funds must be intentionally made available to another person (e.g., a donation or cash transfer). The definition of funds includes money and assets of any kind but does not include goods or services. [14] The mental element for the crimes created under Division 103 is subjective recklessness. [15] This means that the accused must know that there is a substantial risk of the funds being used for terrorism but still makes those funds available regardless of the risks involved in the matter.

Judicial oversight

The published version of the Anti-Terrorism Bill has attracted the criticism that it does not respect the separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional. Prime Minister John Howard has declared, "Speaking for the Commonwealth, and based on the advice I have received from the Crown law authorities at a Commonwealth level, these laws are quite constitutional." [16] John North, President of the Law Council of Australia, said "The power to make control orders is to be given to federal courts and is clearly non-judicial. Judicial power requires a fair procedure, including notice of the proceedings and disclosure of the basis upon which orders are sought and made. None of this occurs in relation to control orders." [17] Similar concerns were raised by the Queensland and Western Australian Premiers and NSW Premier Morris Iemma. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Counterterrorism</span> Activity to defend against or prevent terrorist actions

Counterterrorism, also known as anti-terrorism, relates to the practices, military tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, law enforcement, businesses, and intelligence agencies use to combat or eliminate terrorism and violent extremism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorism Act 2000</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Terrorism Act 2000 is the first of a number of general Terrorism Acts passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It superseded and repealed the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland Act 1996. It also replaced parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1998. The powers it provides the police have been controversial, leading to noted cases of alleged abuse, and to legal challenges in British and European courts. The stop-and-search powers under section 44 of the Act have been ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, formally introduced into Parliament on 19 November 2001, two months after the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September. It received royal assent and came into force on 14 December 2001. Many of its measures are not specifically related to terrorism, and a Parliamentary committee was critical of the swift timetable for such a long bill including non-emergency measures.

Three anti-terrorism bills were enacted in the Australian Parliament in 2004 by the Howard Coalition government with the support of the Labor Opposition. These were the Anti-terrorism Bill 2004, the Anti-terrorism Bill 2004 and the Anti-terrorism Bill 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, intended to deal with the Law Lords' ruling of 16 December 2004 that the detention without trial of eight foreigners at HM Prison Belmarsh under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was unlawful, being incompatible with European human rights laws.

Australian sedition law was an area of the criminal law of Australia relating to the crime of sedition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrorism Act 2006</span> United Kingdom legislation

the The Terrorism Act 2006 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received royal assent on 30 March 2006, after being introduced on 12 October 2005. The Act creates new offences related to terrorism and amends existing ones. The Act was drafted in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, and some of its terms have proven to be highly controversial. The government considered the act a necessary response to an unparalleled terrorist threat; it has encountered opposition from those who feel that it is an undue imposition on civil liberties, and could increase the terrorism risk.

Joseph "Jihad Jack" Terrence Thomas is an Australian citizen who undertook pistol, light firearm and demolition training with Al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden visited his training camp three times while he was in attendance and he shook hands with him. He was convicted for receiving funds from Al-Qaeda, which was later overturned on appeal. Thomas, commonly referred to in Australian media as "Jihad Jack", was acquitted of providing resources that would assist in a terrorist act before becoming the first Australian to be placed under a control order under the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005.

Terrorism financing is the provision of funds or providing financial support to individual terrorists or non-state actors.

The Anti-terrorism Act is an Act passed by the Parliament of Canada in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. It received Royal Assent on December 18, 2001, as Bill C-36 of the 37th Canadian Parliament. The "omnibus bill" extended the powers of government and institutions within the Canadian security establishment to respond to the threat of terrorism.

Anti-terrorism legislation are laws aimed at fighting terrorism. They usually, if not always, follow specific bombings or assassinations. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under alleged grounds of necessity.

From 2000 to 2015, the British Parliament passed a series of Terrorism Acts that were aimed at terrorism in general, rather than specifically focused on terrorism related to Northern Ireland.

Terrorism in Australia deals with terrorist acts in Australia as well as steps taken by the Australian government to counter the threat of terrorism. In 2004 the Australian government has identified transnational terrorism as also a threat to Australia and to Australian citizens overseas. Australia has experienced acts of modern terrorism since the 1960s, while the federal parliament, since the 1970s, has enacted legislation seeking to target terrorism.

Organised Crime and Gangs in Australia refers to the activities of various groups of crime families, organised crime syndicates or underworld activities including drug trafficking, contract killing, racketeering and other crimes in Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Counter-Terrorism Act 2008</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which increased police powers for the stated purpose of countering terrorism. The first reading of the bill was held in January 2008, and it received royal assent on 26 November 2008 following an episode of Parliamentary ping-pong on some of its most controversial issues.

The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 is New Zealand counter-terrorism legislation passed under the Clark-led Labour government. Enacted following the September 11 attacks in the United States, the Act was designed to better address contemporary terrorism issues, both domestically and abroad. Until May 2019, the Act had not been formally used in a prosecution; however there were several failed attempts by the Crown to do so. Many individuals and organisations have however been designated as "Terrorist entities" under the Act's provisions, in line with UN Security Council designations. The Act was amended in 2007. In May 2019, a charge of engaging in a terrorist act was laid against Brenton Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque attacks, under section 6A of the Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019(c. 3) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It received Royal assent on 12 February 2019 and came into force on 12 April 2019.

In Australian criminal law, reasonable and probable grounds most prominently regulates police officers as a precondition of the exercise of certain powers in their function as enforcers of the law. Based on Australian common law, it is a prerequisite of most police powers. In Canada, it is defined as the point where probability replaces suspicion based on a reasonable belief; reasonableness is a legitimate expectation in the existence of specific facts, and the belief in individual circumstances can be "reasonable without being probable." Less-clearly defined in Australia, it depends on the circumstances of a case and often involves an assessment of the circumstances of a potential crime.

The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Act 2021 is an Act of Parliament in New Zealand which strengthens counter-terrorism laws, including a provision makes the planning of a terrorist attack a criminal offence. It was fast-tracked through Parliament due to the 2021 Auckland supermarket stabbing. The bill was supported by the Labour and National parties but opposed by the ACT, Green, and Māori parties. The bill received royal assent on 4 October 2021.

References

  1. ↑ Senate passes counter-terrorism laws. 06/12/2005. ABC News Online Archived 13 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  2. ↑ Lateline – 31/10/2005: Keelty puts case for terrorism laws Archived 10 September 2012 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ↑ Insiders – 30/10/2005: Labor awaits tabling of anti-terrorism bill Archived 10 September 2012 at the Wayback Machine
  4. ↑ Nick McKenzie (17 October 2005). "Stanhope flags doubts on 'hasty' terrorism bill". AM. ABC. Archived from the original on 27 July 2009.
  5. ↑ "Stanhope under fire over bill leak". ABC News Online. ABC. 15 October 2005. Archived from the original on 11 February 2011.
  6. 1 2 Michael Gordon, Barney Zwartz & Rachel Kleinman (19 October 2005). "Unease mounts over anti-terrorism laws". The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax.
  7. ↑ Jewel Topsfield (7 December 2005). "Anti-terror laws rammed through – minus debate". The Age. Melbourne: Fairfax.
  8. ↑ Lim v Minister for Immigration [1992] HCA 64 , (1992) 176 CLR 1, High Court (Australia).
  9. ↑ Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) div 104.
  10. ↑ Lateline – 25/10/2005: Proposed counter-terrorism laws may face constitutional challenge Archived 10 September 2012 at the Wayback Machine
  11. ↑ Andrew Clennell and Louise Dodson "States draw the line at shoot-to-kill laws", Sydney Morning Herald, 21 September 2005, retrieved 4 August 2011
  12. ↑ newsunleashed.com Archived 14 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  13. ↑ Michelle Grattan (24 September 2005). "Terror shoot law may alter". The Age. Melbourne. Archived from the original on 23 June 2011. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
  14. ↑ Criminal Code (Cth) s 100.1
  15. ↑ Criminal Code (Cth) ss 103.1(1)(b), 103.2(1)(b)
  16. 1 2 "Anti-Terrorism Bill Constitutional".[ dead link ]
  17. ↑ Law Council of Australia – Media Release – Anti-Terror Bill: Judiciary Compromised – 25 October 2005 Archived 13 January 2006 at the Wayback Machine

The legislation, proposed and current:

Popular press response:

Other commentary:

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.