Proposal to jail Australian terrorists indefinitely to be debated at COAG
TERRORISTS could be locked-up indefinitely — after they’ve finished their jail terms — under radical proposals to be discussed by the nation’s political leaders tomorrow.
Law & Order
Don't miss out on the headlines from Law & Order. Followed categories will be added to My News.
TERRORISTS could be locked-up indefinitely — after they’ve finished their jail terms — under radical proposals to be discussed by the nation’s political leaders tomorrow.
The move would apply to any convicted terrorist deemed to still pose a threat to the public at the end of their jail term.
The Herald Sun can reveal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has placed on the agenda for tomorrow’s COAG meeting a plan for states and territories to consider “post-sentence preventive detention.’’
The plan would see judges consider whether or not a convicted terrorist still posed a threat to the public at the end of their jail term. If they were deemed by the judge to still be a threat, they would be locked up indefinitely, until deemed to pose no threat.
The plan is to use existing state laws, which already allow for ongoing detention of serious sex offenders and some violent criminals, to be expanded to include convicted terrorists.
The political leaders will discuss who would make the application to the judge — it could be made by state Directors of Public Prosecutions, or potentially by Attorneys-General.
Agencies such as the Australian Federal Police would be involved in assessing a person’s suitability for release, and providing information to allow the application to be made by a judge.
The terrorists will have the right to judicial review and appeal.
There will also be discussion about which offences a person would be convicted with if they were to be later assessed on whether they posed a threat.
This would include carrying out a terror attack, but there will be discussion around whether it should also include people who plan an attack, or support terrorists or terrorist organisations.
The Federal Government believes that the law will be valid, as it is an extension of existing, successful state-based laws.
Nonetheless it is likely to be highly controversial in legal circles.
There is no expectation that separate jails would be built, as state corrections agencies will detain the terrorists in the same manner they do now, meaning they could continue to be held in maximum security.
It will not apply to all terrorists, just those who are deemed to still pose a risk at the end of their term.
According to documents seen by the Herald Sun, the majority of states and territories in Australia (including Victoria) already have laws which allow for preventive detention of high-risk offenders.
“However, these schemes do not cover post-sentence detention of terrorists. Australia relies on control orders for monitoring terrorists and terrorism suspects and preventive detention orders for short term detention, in the absence of a conviction,’’ the document states.
“At present, upon completing their sentence, convicted terrorists in Australia will re-enter the community freely, even if there is a high risk that they may reoffend and harm the public.’’
There are currently nine terrorists imprisoned in NSW and four in Victoria.
While the most high-profile of these in Victoria, terror cell leader Abdul Nacer Benbrika, is a dual national and likely to be deported under new laws which would strip his Australian citizenship when he is released from jail in 2017, others hold Australian nationality only.
“The Citizenship Act has just been amended to enable the cessation of convicted terrorists’ Australian citizenship,’’ the document states.
“But this law only applies to dual nationals. A post preventive detention scheme would apply to all Australians equally and therefore cover all convicted terrorists.’’
The Commonwealth believes the legal concept of retrospectivity does not apply because it is not adding a new crime to the charges the terrorists have already faced.
And because it is an expansion of proven state-based schemes, they do not anticipate major legal hurdles with introducing the laws.
“There is strong legal support for such schemes,’’ the document states.
“Precedent suggests that if a scheme is designed to achieve a legitimate, preventive, non-punitive purpose in the public interest, and with due regard to a full and conventional judicial process, it is likely to be held valid.’’