By Robert Hart, Parliamentary ReporterTHE CONTROVERSIAL Terrorism Prevention Bill will be debated in Parliament within a month if K.D. Knight, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, has his way.
But during yesterday's sitting of the joint select committee examining the Bill, concerns were raised about the proposed legislative treatment of alleged 'terrorist acts' resulting in death.
ONE FINAL MEETING
The committee, chaired by Minister Knight, is expected to have one final meeting to sign off on its report which will be sent back to the House of Representatives. The House will then debate the Bill which the Government also wants passed in the Senate by September.
Yesterday the committee wrestled with the inconsistency created by amendments made last week which render offences under the Terrorism Prevention Bill punishable by a maximum of life in prison. Under the Offences Against the Person Act, the killing of at least two people is automatically deemed a capital crime and punishable by a maximum sentence of death. As a result persons charged under the Terrorism Prevention Bill, for committing terrorist acts that lead to the deaths of others, would find themselves subject to a lesser maximum sentence than persons charged with murder under the Offences Against the Person Act.
Minister of Justice A.J. Nicholson, in seeking to address this anomaly, suggested that suspects accused of murder be prosecuted under the Offences Bill. "If on the question of death the issue of murder is going to arise, leave it to the Offences Against the Person Act," the Justice Minister and Attorney General said.
But Government Senator Professor Trevor Munroe disagreed, arguing that such a move would mean that the offences under the Terrorism Prevention Bill would include actions resulting in bodily harm but not death. "I cannot conceive of any Bill in any country defining terrorist activity and excluding the consequences of death," he said.
SUGGESTED DPP RESPONSIBILITY
It was also suggested during the sitting that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) would have the responsibility to determine (depending on the circumstances) under which law the individual should be prosecuted. But adding his voice to the discussion, Abe Dabdoub, Opposition MP and lawyer, argued that he was concerned about the DPP holding sway over which of the laws an individual was prosecuted under.
"I would not like to see the DPP have that discretion," he said. "Suppose secretly the DPP shares the political views of the person and decides 'Well let me charge him under the Terrorism Act?'"
Mr. Dabdoub was suggesting that a DPP would be able to ensure a maximum sentence of life in prison, rather than death, by prosecuting an individual under the Terrorism Act for the same crime that could be prosecuted under the Offences Against the Person Act.
But in a sharp retort, Mr. Nicholson scolded the Opposition MP for the suggestion. "I detest the reference made by Mr. Dabdoub! You know why? Every single public official has his own personal political feeling, but you must assume that person is going to act in the full interest of justice."
The committee later adjourned, leaving the Parliamentary Council to consider and adjust the legislation.
