Territory Stories

Social Policy Scrutiny Committee Inquiry into the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (Consequential and Related Amendments) Bill 2017 February 2018

Details:

Title

Social Policy Scrutiny Committee Inquiry into the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (Consequential and Related Amendments) Bill 2017 February 2018

Other title

Tabled paper 588

Collection

Tabled papers for 13th Assembly 2016 - 2020; Tabled papers; ParliamentNT

Date

2018-02-06

Description

Tabled by Ngaree Ah Kit

Notes

Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory under Standing Order 240. Where copyright subsists with a third party it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Language

English

Subject

Tabled papers

Publisher name

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Place of publication

Darwin

File type

application/pdf

Use

Copyright

Copyright owner

See publication

License

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019C00042

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/290102

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/403129

Page content

Examination of the Bill 13 3 Examination of the Bill Introduction 3.1 Following consideration of the Bill, Professor Aughterson raised concerns regarding proposed amendments to sections 75C and 79 of the Criminal Code. Professor Aughtersons advice and subsequent response from the Department of the AttorneyGeneral and Justice are discussed below. Improper Conduct 3.2 The Bill includes improper conduct as an element of certain offences in the Criminal Code.3 Section 75C is a new section which is designed to provide a standard, consistent element of impropriety across the amended offences of Part IV.4 Conduct is defined as improper if the finder of fact is satisfied that the conduct, in the circumstances, warrants criminal sanction. In deciding whether a persons conduct warrants criminal sanction, s 75C(2) requires that the judge or jury have regard to the following matters: (a) if the person is a public officer whether the person behaved in a way reasonably expected of a public officer; (b) if the person is not a public officer whether the person behaved in a way reasonably expected of the person; (c) whether the person acted in an honest and reasonable belief that the person was lawfully entitled to act in the manner the person acted in the conduct being considered; (d) the seriousness of the conduct and result of the conduct; (e) whether the conduct occurred: (i) as an isolated incident; or (ii) as part of repeated similar conduct; or (iii) as part of a course of conduct. 3.3 Noting that s 75C follows the approach adopted by South Australia5 in relation to similar offences, the Explanatory Statement states that: this test recognises that the conduct technically criminalised by these offences ranges from very serious corruption, down to the kind of errors of judgement by new employees that would typically be addressed by performance managementGiven that these offences are being broadened to apply not only to employees in the public service, but to all public officers, it is particularly appropriate this test be included to avoid criminalising low-level conduct that would not be viewed as criminal by community standards. The definition of public 3 Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (Consequential and Related Amendments) Bill 2017 (Serial 35), https://parliament.nt.gov.au/committees/spsc/CRA, ss 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,81 4 Explanatory Statement, Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (Consequential and Related Amendments) Bill 2017 (Serial No. 35), https://parliament.nt.gov.au/committees/spsc/CRA, pp.4-5 5 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s.238 https://parliament.nt.gov.au/committees/spsc/CRA https://parliament.nt.gov.au/committees/spsc/CRA