Thomas V Mowbray Revolutionised And Created A New

The 2002 Bali Bombings were a series of suicide bombing attacks on the popular western tourist district of Kuta, Bali - an island of Indonesia. The attack occurred on October 12, 2002 and took the lives of 202 people; 88 of which were Australian nationals. This response will evaluate the legal and non-legal responses to the Bali Bombings according to the following criteria: resource efficiency, accessibility, enforceability, responsiveness, protection of individual rights, meeting society 's needs and the application of the rule of law, and aims to answer the question that, in this case, has justice been

Australian society has ultimately rejected the idea of the practice of capital punishment making a return into the Australian law books. However, events such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the Bali bombings have ensured that the spotlight once again shines on the controversial subject. I am in favour of the practice returning to Australia for heinous crimes such as murder, child molestation, serial rapists, and people who commit acts of animal cruelty. This is because:

The practical application of the defence power in an age of terrorism is difficult to determine, as it is reliant upon a set of circumstances that can have a plethora of different interpretations from a range of variant perspectives. Unlike some other powers, the defence power is purposive and elastic; it waxes and wanes, and its application “depends upon the facts, and as those facts change so may its actual operation as a power”[1]. Recent developments, such as the Thomas case, have led some theorists to comment that “the elastic of the defence power has become stretched all out of proportion”[2]. In its present interpretation, the defence

The bank crash of 1930 wiped out a young man's entire savings, destroying his dream of going to medical school. However, this didn't stop him from going on to revolutionize the medical profession.

As a result of the Second World War the power and prestige of the Australian Government increased significantly. Most of the powers acquired by the Commonwealth were gained with the passing of the National Security Act on the 9th of September 1939. The sweeping powers allowed the Federal Government to control the civil liberties of civilians, industry manufactures and the workforce, the role of women and many activities of everyday Australians. Although these controls brought hardship and some tensions within society, the Australian people were united in the war effort and in the ‘austerity’ required from them.

Australia’s first anti-terror laws were enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 (Prof Andrew Lynch 2010). In recent years, increasing Australian involvement in international conflict has seen these laws shift to accommodate alarming trends in home grown terrorism (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2014). Sydney’s 2014 terror raids prompted the most significant changes to Australia’s counter terrorism legislation in the last decade (Commonwealth of Australia Department of Defence 2015). Amendments granted law enforcement and intelligence agencies new and somewhat controversial powers, in the name of national security.

3) “It was not until after 9/11 that democratic countries introduced legislation that criminalised an ‘act of terrorism’” (O’Hare, 2011) To aid police in their fight against terrorism, the Australian Government has made a significant number of changes to current legislation, as well as introducing a number of new counter-terrorism laws to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorist threats. “The states and territories have referred legislative powers to the Commonwealth to allow the creation of a single set of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code).” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) These amendments, and additional legislation, have been instrumental in allowing law enforcement to respond to terrorist threats. In addition to new criminal offences, new powers include; more effective detention and questioning powers; the ability to declare terrorist organisations illegal; and the ability to exercise more control over people’s movements. The new counter-terrorism “offences are aimed at individuals who engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or provide support for terrorist acts.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) Other tools within the Criminal Code available are ‘control orders’ and ‘preventative detention’. “Control orders are protective measures that can restrict a person’s movements and activities.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 57) Whereas

As above demonstrates, this Act provides controversial, unusual and empowering duties to ASIO. The unusual and contentious background to this Act is highlighted by the long debate prior to its enactment. This act took almost the longest in history to enact- 15 months of parliamentary debate occurred, and after such scrutiny, a sunset clause of 10 years was applied to the act. The Coalition government gave reasoning for this 10 year clause as ‘there was still a threat of terrorist attack and it was undesirable to distract ASIO from its operations any more frequently than necessary’. Others said that terror is a ‘is a long-term, generational threat’ and the Australian citizens deserve to have protection from such threats. However, this threat

In December 2005 ‘Control Orders’ became part of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorism threats (The Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p 57). Issued by a court, at the request of the AFP, an individual could be prohibited or restricted in movement, for the express purpose of protecting the public from a terrorist act. Such restrictions may comprise of curfews, electronic monitoring devices, restrictions of telecommunications, specified reporting to police and other measures. Jack Thomas (August 2006) and David Hicks (December 2007) are the only two individuals who have been issued control orders in Australia by law enforcement. (Jaggers, B. April 2008). para 1).

The historic and political foundation for lay participation in criminal jury trials is that it offers an important check on judicial and political power exercised exclusively by the government. The jury’s role as a popular body for oversight of government becomes especially important when individual citizens or groups have been accused of committing serious crimes against their own government. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the passage of the 2001 Patriot Act in the United States and similar anti-terrorism measures imposed in other nations in the world, serious terrorism charges have been brought against their citizens, political dissidents, and civic activists. In Australia, for instance, after the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2002, two separate juries examined charges of terrorism. In Australia’s first-ever terrorism trial in 2005, the all-citizen jury acquitted Zeky Mallah, 21-year-old supermarket worker, of terrorist charges of preparing to storm government offices and shoot officers in a supposed suicide mission . In the second highly controversial trial, in which the government’s only evidence was the defendant’s confession extracted at a Pakistani military prison, the jury found Joseph Thomas guilty of charges for intentionally receiving funds from al-Qaeda. However, soon after the verdict, the appeal’s court reversed all of his convictions because it determined his coerced confession at a foreign prison to be inadmissible .

Much of western society has a deep fear of terrorism and this law was brought in with the change of political power to the Turnbull government. This law being brought in right at the start of the change in power could have been used to possibly sway public votes and to make the government look like they are taking a big stand on terrorism. A reason this is being argued is due to the fact the government openly shows off this law but doesn’t advertise the obvious breaches to basic human rights for just being accused of a crime and them not needing any proof just a detention warrant. Many rights are being breached but imparticularly to “non-discrimination” as one minority group will be targeted the Muslim community. Therefore this law is not fair and reasonable to all the people in society but an improvement to the law could be instead of being detained for 14 days they could be placed under house arrest. That way they will be more comfortable but will do the same job of stopping them from leaving especially if there communications are monitored. I do believe in some cases laws like this are needed but it is worrying that these kind of laws can set a precedent for future laws segregating/ discriminating certain minority groups in

Trial & Terrorism: The Implications of Trying National Security Cases in Article III Courts, Lewis A. Kaplan, 8 J.NAT’L SECURITY L.&POL’Y___ (forthcoming 2015) http://jnslp.com/2015/10/14/the-implications-of-trying-national-security-cases-in-article-iii-courts/

On Monday, April 15, 2013, two brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, detonated a homemade bomb near the Boston Marathon killing three people and maiming dozens others. Tamerlan, the older brother died in the process leaving Dzhokhar to answer for the heinous crime. Critics are advocating that the surviving bomber, being a US citizen, should have been read his rights before extracting any information from him. Granted that Tsarnaev, a US citizen 's Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights were violated, his citizenship became questionable when terroristic acts were committed against America. Because the FBI and law enforcement agencies’ first and foremost agenda was to keep Americans safe, answers were needed immediately to determine if there were plans for bombing other U.S. cities, and they made the most logical decision within the context of the law to react quickly by delaying Tsarnaev’s Miranda Rights justifiably.

It is to be noted that apart from the preventive detention without charge as discussed earlier, terror suspects can be punished under the Penal Code. The predominant concern in sentencing terror suspects is that of imposing severe penalty including capital punishment which is perceived to be disproportionate in the circumstances. Although terrorism offences could be expected to attract heavy sentences, terrorism offenders have slightly better prior records (if we were to discount their involvement in terrorism acts) than other criminal offenders. They are some people of relatively good character, but because of the law, they are penalised. Those charged with terrorism offences may be hard-pressed to argue other mitigating factors, such as remorse but with limited success.

The first argument supporting the statement that national security is more important than protection of individual rights is the increased threat of terroristic attacks, which are very dangerous, carefully planned, locally targeted and generously funded