Latest News & Updates

Youthlaw has advocated for the interests of young people in relation to proposed cyber-bullying laws and policies in the Department of Communications’ Discussion Paper “Enhancing Online Safety for Children”.

We support the establishment of a Children’s e-Safety Commissioner, development of an effective complaints system to remove harmful material from social media sites quickly and securing these protections with federal legislation.

While Youthlaw supports a new cyber-bullying specific criminal offence, we are concerned that the proposed penalties could have unintended and unfair consequences for young people.

Youthlaw believes any cyber-bullying specific offence should be available for all victims of cyber-bullying (not just under 18 year olds). In relation to young offenders, the proposed penalty of a fine is overly punitive and out of line with existing penalties in the Children’s Court and not an effective deterrent for young people. Instead, we propose an educative and prevention-focused cyber-bullying diversion program that reinforces the harmful effects of cyber-bullying and the responsibilities of young people when using social media.

Read more: Youthlaw submission – Online Safety for Children Discussion Paper 2014

There has been public outcry in relation to the proposed laws removing rights to engage in public assembly and political demonstration. See concerns outlined in recent submissions to Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee.

Apart from those engaged in political demonstration,  the proposed amendments will have a disproportionate impact on marginalised young people, people experiencing homelessness, poverty, and mental health issues who occupy public spaces.

In brief, the Bill proposes to extend the power of police and PSOs to issue move on directions in a number of key ways that will affect these vulnerable members of the community who rely on public spaces.Changes proposed under the new Summary Offences and Sentencing Amendment Bill 2013 (Vic) include expanded powers to move people on in public spaces, to exclude from  public places for up to 12 months, and to effect arrest where there is a failure to comply.

Under the new laws, a  member of the police force or a PSO can direct a person to leave a public place and not to return to it for up to 24 hours where they reasonably suspect:

• person(s) are present for the purpose of buying or selling drugs
• the person has committed a summary offence in the public space in the last 12 hours (e.g. littering, begging, drunk and disorderly),
• where the conduct of person(s) is causing a reasonable apprehension of violence in another person.

Under the new laws arrest powers are extended to cover a failure to comply with a move on direction.

Where three move on directions are issued within six months, or five within twelve months, police may lodge a Court application to exclude a person from a public space for a period of up to one year.

Where a person engages in conduct in contravention of an exclusion order knowing or being reckless as to whether the order is in effect, a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment may apply.

Young people are particularly vulnerable to the impact of move on powers and exclusion orders, as they are more frequently in the public eye and frequently occupy public spaces and facilities, as a result of social choice and financial necessity.

We already hear from young people especially those from diverse cultural backgrounds or with experiences of homelessness, that current move-on powers are often used in a way that makes them feel targeted, alienated and unjustly excluded from public space

At a time when government, police and community are exploring ways to divert and support young people away form the criminal justice system, these proposed laws will pull more young people into the system.

At a time when police are reviewing their policies and training to help officers engage with people fairly and impartially, the proposed laws may well exacerbate tensions between police and young people.

NOW is the time for concerned individuals and organisations to raise any these issues with members of Parliament, and to request a stay of the Bill to allow opportunity for proper consultation and consideration of community  concerns.

Last Friday the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made a landmark decision to grant a protective cost order to our client Nassir Bare.  Without this order he would have had to discontinue his appeal. The appeal will now proceed.

This decision is a first for Victoria and will create a legal precedent to protect people bringing public interest cases where they might otherwise be stopped from doing so by prohibitive costs.

The decision was made by the highest court in Victoria and will be influential nationally.  Australia has no national laws regulating costs in public interest cases and few court decisions.

The anti-corruption body  IBAC and the Victorian Attorney-General opposed the costs order arguing that public interest  was not a sufficient reason for costs to be restricted  and that the appeal case is unlikely to be successful .

The order restricts any costs against our client to $5,000.  Compare this to the possibility of hundreds of thousands of dollars and you can understand why this decision is so significant.

The substantive case is about the accountability of police when they misuse and abuse their powers.  Our client Nassir Bare a vulnerable young man was assaulted at the age of 17 by police and requested his complaint be investigated not by police but by an independent body. His complaint was sent to the OPI (now IBAC) but they refused to investigate and referred it to Victoria Police.  It is at this point that this test case began by challenging the decision by IBAC.

IBAC  currently only investigates 1% of complaints against police. The rest are investigated by Victoria Police.

The appeal follows a March decision by Justice Williams of the Supreme Court. Justice Williams found against Nassir Bare and in favour of  IBAC. The court case heard that Nassir was subjected to a serious assault, including being capsicum sprayed while handcuffed and being racially abused at the hands of Victoria Police officers in February 2009. At issue was the right to independent review of the allegations rather than investigation by police themselves.

Both the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and the Attorney-General have intervened in the case as it calls into question whether IBAC has complied with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

We thank the legal team at Maddocks and counsel Jason Pizer, Emrys Nekvapil and Fiona Spencer for their exceptional pro bono assistance.

Reasons for today’s decision, which sets an important precedent, will be handed down in court on Friday 9th August 2013 at 9.45am.

Read the following media coverage of the decision:

• Court victory hailed by legal campaigners, ABC Radio National PM, 2 August 2013
• Melbourne man wins right to take on police without fear of incurring hefty legal costs, ABC News Online, 2 August 2013
• Costs waived in police racism hearing, The Age, 2 August 2013
• Vic man fights to have complaint against police brought to court, ABC Radio National AM, 2 August 2013
• No right to independent police investigation, Youthlaw, 26 March 2013

For media comment at or after the hearing on Friday 2 August:

Ariel Couchman, Director (Youthlaw) mobile: 0438 812 937

For media assistance contact:

Darren Lewin-Hill, Communications Manager (Federation of Community Legal Centres) mobile: 0488 773 535