Assaulting Police. Libs move to toughen penalties.

By 6 August, 2011 33

Liberal Leader Zed Seselja is promising to introduce legislation to punish the morons punching on with the cops in Civic of a night.

We must do everything we can to deter violent assaults and other offences against police in the course of their duties, Mr Seselja said.

This legislation will send a very clear message: offences against police will result in strong penalties.

It amends the Crimes ACT 1900 to provide tougher penalties for offences against police, meaning a number of offences including assault, manslaughter and threats to kill would be considered an aggravated offence and have higher prosecution penalties.

The legislation applies if an offence is committed against a police officer while on the job or in relation to any actions taken in their official capacity.

Shadow Police and Corrections Minister Jeremy Hanson said the legislation would bring the ACT in line with other states which already have strong laws around offences against police.

On the one hand once again we have the Liberals again reflexively banging the Laura Norder gong.

On the other hand the sort of dick so far gone in violence and stupidity as to start something to police is a mighty menace to the rest of society.

Here’s a breakdown of the changes they’re putting forward.

Proposed penalties under new legislation: Crimes (Offences Against Police) Amendment Bill 2011

Offence

Current penalty

Proposed penalty if committed against police

Manslaughter

20 years jail

26 years jail

Intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm

15 years jail

20 years jail

Recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm

10 years jail

13 years jail

Wounding

5 years jail

7 years jail

Assault with intent to commit other offence

5 years jail

7 years jail

Inflicting actual bodily harm

5 years jail

7 years jail

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

5 years jail

7 years jail

Causing grievous bodily harm

2 years jail

3 years jail

Common assault

2 years jail

3 years jail

Threat to kill

10 years jail

13 years jail

Threat to inflict grievous bodily harm

5 years jail

7 years jail

Possession of object with intent to kill

5 years jail

7 years jail

Forcible confinement

10 years jail

13 years jail

Affray

10 years jail

13 years jail

Stalking

5 years for certain offences and 2 years for any other case

7 years and 3 years jail respectively

 

 

Please login to post your comments
33 Responses to Assaulting Police. Libs move to toughen penalties.
#1
what_the2:22 pm, 06 Aug 11

How about the ACT Courts actually start applying heavier penalties. It’s not like they’re maxing out the existing penalties, so what’s raising the ceiling going to do? Looks like being seen to be doing something because ‘something needs to be done!’

#2
caf8:46 pm, 06 Aug 11

I’m not sure that liquored up louts punching on with police are the sort to be terribly au fait with the exact sentencing details of the Crimes Act, much less let such concerns enter into their decision calculus.

Still, I can’t see it being much of a negative either, so why not.

#3
johnboy8:51 pm, 06 Aug 11

Less value in deterrence as much as just removing from the community.

#4
caf8:55 pm, 06 Aug 11

Mr Seselja appears to believe that it’s about deterrence, though – which seems a bit fanciful to me.

#5
LSWCHP11:00 pm, 06 Aug 11

what_the said :

How about the ACT Courts actually start applying heavier penalties. It’s not like they’re maxing out the existing penalties, so what’s raising the ceiling going to do?

Looks like being seen to be doing something because ‘something needs to be done!’

Precisely. I see fairly regular reports about police officers copping a beating and ending up with chipped teeth, lacerations and other injuries. I imagine these might fall under the categories of assualt, wounding, bodily harm etc, but I haven’t heard of too many hoods going down for a 5 stretch as a result.

I would be only to happy to see idiots who assault police officers being removed from the streets for a long, long time, but I don’t see how lengthening sentencing options will be of any use, if the current sentences are ignored by the judiciary.

#6
Violet6811:34 pm, 06 Aug 11

LSWCHP said :

what_the said :

How about the ACT Courts actually start applying heavier penalties. It’s not like they’re maxing out the existing penalties, so what’s raising the ceiling going to do?

Looks like being seen to be doing something because ‘something needs to be done!’

Precisely. I see fairly regular reports about police officers copping a beating and ending up with chipped teeth, lacerations and other injuries. I imagine these might fall under the categories of assualt, wounding, bodily harm etc, but I haven’t heard of too many hoods going down for a 5 stretch as a result.

I would be only to happy to see idiots who assault police officers being removed from the streets for a long, long time, but I don’t see how lengthening sentencing options will be of any use, if the current sentences are ignored by the judiciary.

I would be only to happy to see the police who assault those who are obviously intoxicated and unable to defend themselves removed from the streets for a long, long time but I don’t see how giving them extra powers and increasing sentencing options will be of any use, if they continue to be held unaccountable for their actions.

#7
Violet6811:43 pm, 06 Aug 11

johnboy said :

Less value in deterrence as much as just removing from the community.

Do you really believe that removing them from the community is going to give them more respect for it? Pfffft!

#8
ozmaniac11:49 pm, 06 Aug 11

Neither the current or proposed penalties will ever be properly enforced. You see, its all about the cost. Punishment or protection of the public simply don’t come into it.

#9
Henry822:43 am, 07 Aug 11

what_the said :

It’s not like they’re maxing out the existing penalties, so what’s raising the ceiling going to do?

completely agree

#10
Siren3:19 am, 07 Aug 11

A timely step in the right direction to bring the ACT into line with other States.
Interesting that they’re only looking to amend the Act to consider certain offences ‘aggravated’ rather than just bringing in an ‘assault police’ charge though.
The Courts are fettered by precedent and a raft of other red-tape chains in terms of sentencing that also keeps defence lawyers paid – maybe the sentencing legislation needs to be looked at too?

#11
fgzk8:09 am, 07 Aug 11

Here we have one group of privileged, secure, powerful politicians appealing to another group of secure, privileged, empowered voters, offering to protect the most powerful well resourceful and secure group within the community, the police. Add to this the politicization of senior police and their Associations and you start to wonder whether law and order is just about winning personal gain for the well resourced powerful privileged groups of our community.

Id encourage the police to keep tackling the violence in our community even tho it brings the risk of assault. That’s what all the training courses and equipment are for. That’s their job. A job that they have always done well. Dominate violence in the community.

#12
johnboy8:45 am, 07 Aug 11

Violet68 said :

johnboy said :

Less value in deterrence as much as just removing from the community.

Do you really believe that removing them from the community is going to give them more respect for it? Pfffft!

What they respect is a matter for their own conscience.

But no one in prison has ever started a fight on london circuit.

#13
Ben_Dover9:03 am, 07 Aug 11

what_the said :

I would be only to happy to see the police who assault those who are obviously intoxicated and unable to defend themselves removed from the streets for a long, long time but I don’t see how giving them extra powers and increasing sentencing options will be of any use, if they continue to be held unaccountable for their actions.

#14
milkman9:04 am, 07 Aug 11

johnboy said :

Violet68 said :

johnboy said :

Less value in deterrence as much as just removing from the community.

Do you really believe that removing them from the community is going to give them more respect for it? Pfffft!

What they respect is a matter for their own conscience.

But no one in prison has ever started a fight on london circuit.

Exactly – this is about protecting Jenny and Joe Average from the violence of dickheads.

#15
Ben_Dover9:49 am, 07 Aug 11

Oops, mucked up my last post, I’ll try again.

what_the said :

How about the ACT Courts actually start applying heavier penalties. It’s not like they’re maxing out the existing penalties, so what’s raising the ceiling going to do?

Looks like being seen to be doing something because ‘something needs to be done!’

I totally agree. Increasing the duration of incarceration available is only worthwhile if it is used. The police have no control over that.

Maybe if the judiciary were to have given the likes of Mully heavy sentences in the first instance, then it may have sunk into the heads of some of the other thugs hereabouts that their behaviour may end up with them being banged up for a long time, a sure disincentive.

But with Canberra having a “soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime”, reputation, what disincentive is there?

And there’s also this sort of apologist idiocy to deal with;

Violet68 said :

I would be only to happy to see the police who assault those who are obviously intoxicated and unable to defend themselves removed from the streets for a long, long time but I don’t see how giving them extra powers and increasing sentencing options will be of any use, if they continue to be held unaccountable for their actions.

#16
Tooks10:03 am, 07 Aug 11

Violet68 said :

johnboy said :

Less value in deterrence as much as just removing from the community.

Do you really believe that removing them from the community is going to give them more respect for it? Pfffft!

Who cares? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of punishment?

#17
vg10:59 am, 07 Aug 11

“I would be only to happy to see the police who assault those who are obviously intoxicated and unable to defend themselves removed from the streets for a long, long time but I don’t see how giving them extra powers and increasing sentencing options will be of any use, if they continue to be held unaccountable for their actions.”

Let me guess. You went into Civic one night and made a drunken ass of yourself, the end result being you got locked up. You tried to punch on with the cops but were lawfully restrained and spent the night in the cells.

The next morning you woke up feeling sad and sorry for yourself and made a bullshit complaint, which was in turn investigated then reviewed by the Ombudsman and found to be complete bollocks.

How does that sound? Either that or your mother’s brother’s cousin told you about a mate who it happened to in 1994.

#18
Thumper11:17 am, 07 Aug 11

I would be only to happy to see the police who assault those who are obviously intoxicated and unable to defend themselves removed from the streets for a long, long time but I don’t see how giving them extra powers and increasing sentencing options will be of any use, if they continue to be held unaccountable for their actions

Of course you have evidence of these brutal and heartless coppers wandering through civic late at night beating up any poor hapless drunks they happen across?

Somewhere a bridge is missing its troll.

#19
LSWCHP10:46 pm, 07 Aug 11

Violet68 said :

I would be only to happy to see the police who assault those who are obviously intoxicated and unable to defend themselves removed from the streets for a long, long time but I don’t see how giving them extra powers and increasing sentencing options will be of any use, if they continue to be held unaccountable for their actions.

This is nonsense. And it’s not just harmless and mildly amusing nonsense like Violet usually produces. It’s wicked and perverse nonsense that is offered without any apparent thought or any evidence to back it up. If police officers really were wandering the streets at night flogging drunks in public view then there would be an almight outcry, lawsuits, newspaper headlines about police brutality, long raves by victims on RiotAct etc etc. Bogan thugs are never backwards in using the law and all other means to protect themselves, as we know from the case of CRK for example.

So Violet, what you are suggesting here simply isn’t true. It’s blindingly obvious that it isn’t true to even the most casual observer. And it’s not just bogus, it attacks and damages the police without evidence or reason. It’s simply bad. It is vitriol sprayed without thought, and it discredits you.

#20
fgzk7:08 am, 08 Aug 11

Take a bex LSWCHP.

LSWCHP said :

Violet68 said :

I would be only to happy to see the police who assault those who are obviously intoxicated and unable to defend themselves removed from the streets for a long, long time but I don’t see how giving them extra powers and increasing sentencing options will be of any use, if they continue to be held unaccountable for their actions.

This is nonsense. And it’s not just harmless and mildly amusing nonsense like Violet usually produces. It’s wicked and perverse nonsense that is offered without any apparent thought or any evidence to back it up. If police officers really were wandering the streets at night flogging drunks in public view then there would be an almight outcry, lawsuits, newspaper headlines about police brutality, long raves by victims on RiotAct etc etc. Bogan thugs are never backwards in using the law and all other means to protect themselves, as we know from the case of CRK for example.

So Violet, what you are suggesting here simply isn’t true. It’s blindingly obvious that it isn’t true to even the most casual observer. And it’s not just bogus, it attacks and damages the police without evidence or reason. It’s simply bad. It is vitriol sprayed without thought, and it discredits you.

#21
Sleaz2749:02 am, 08 Aug 11

Personally I’d prefer to see the Police beat the absolute living crap out of people who assaulted them. Bogans and morons who decide to assault police are only really 0.001% above chimpanzees, stupid hairless monkeys and the results of their actions need to be tangible to them immediately as it is the only response they truly understand. They seem to innately believe they are alpha monkeys when the rest of society decided some centuries ago (probably around the time of the crusades) that they aren’t. They should therefore be availed of these thoughts as swiftly and forcibly as possible.

Then once they’ve had a while laying in a hospital bed reflected on the fact that they are stupid hairless chimpanzees (which they won’t because they don’t have abstract thoughts) the courts can then apply the longer sentences so they can discover they really are bottoms and next time when they are 45 years+ they’ll have some respect.

It’s really the only solution.

#22
Mysteryman11:47 am, 08 Aug 11

LSWCHP said :

Violet68 said :

I would be only to happy to see the police who assault those who are obviously intoxicated and unable to defend themselves removed from the streets for a long, long time but I don’t see how giving them extra powers and increasing sentencing options will be of any use, if they continue to be held unaccountable for their actions.

This is nonsense. And it’s not just harmless and mildly amusing nonsense like Violet usually produces. It’s wicked and perverse nonsense that is offered without any apparent thought or any evidence to back it up. If police officers really were wandering the streets at night flogging drunks in public view then there would be an almight outcry, lawsuits, newspaper headlines about police brutality, long raves by victims on RiotAct etc etc. Bogan thugs are never backwards in using the law and all other means to protect themselves, as we know from the case of CRK for example.

So Violet, what you are suggesting here simply isn’t true. It’s blindingly obvious that it isn’t true to even the most casual observer. And it’s not just bogus, it attacks and damages the police without evidence or reason. It’s simply bad. It is vitriol sprayed without thought, and it discredits you.

I agree completely.

#23
aceofspades1:00 pm, 08 Aug 11

I have personally watched supposedly upstanding protectors of society stand in court and outright lie and manufacture evidence in unison to cover their own actions. In general police officers are lazy young kids that lack any form of life experience. They are quick to jump to conclusions without proper investigation in order to find the easiest way out of doing any work. They learn very quickly that if they are irrational or irresponsible they can hide behind their uniforms and their partners in order to avoid any consequences for their actions. If police officers did their job appropriately then they probably would not be assaulted anywhere near as much as they are. I doubt that any information general public receive surrounding an assault police charge has any semblance to truth. Why should assaulting a police officer carry a higher penalty than assaulting any other ordinary citizen?

#24
Henry821:22 pm, 08 Aug 11

aceofspades said :

. In general police officers are lazy young kids that lack any form of life experience.

Average age is 36 so im not sure on your definition of “young kids”
http://www.afp.gov.au/media-centre/facts-stats/afp-staff-statistics/staff-in-act/staff-in-act-policing.aspx

#25
LSWCHP1:32 pm, 08 Aug 11

aceofspades said :

I have personally watched supposedly upstanding protectors of society stand in court and outright lie and manufacture evidence in unison to cover their own actions. In general police officers are lazy young kids that lack any form of life experience. They are quick to jump to conclusions without proper investigation in order to find the easiest way out of doing any work. They learn very quickly that if they are irrational or irresponsible they can hide behind their uniforms and their partners in order to avoid any consequences for their actions. If police officers did their job appropriately then they probably would not be assaulted anywhere near as much as they are. I doubt that any information general public receive surrounding an assault police charge has any semblance to truth. Why should assaulting a police officer carry a higher penalty than assaulting any other ordinary citizen?

Now that’s an outstanding piece of reasoning. I particularly like the innovative thinking that leads you to conclude that drunken hoods who assault police officers are really not at fault. In fact, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the police themselves are actually to blame for most such assaults because they don’t do their jobs very well.

Can you elaborate on this at all. I’d really like to know what aspect of their jobs police officers could improve on that would reduce the number of assaults on them. Really. I would.

#26
aceofspades1:42 pm, 08 Aug 11

Henry82 said :

aceofspades said :

. In general police officers are lazy young kids that lack any form of life experience.

Average age is 36 so im not sure on your definition of “young kids”
http://www.afp.gov.au/media-centre/facts-stats/afp-staff-statistics/staff-in-act/staff-in-act-policing.aspx

Including the lazy old pen pushing station officers. What is the average age of general duties officers on the beat? I speak from experience, I have been unfairly treated myself in a domestic situation purely because I am a large man. No investigation was done, assumptions were made and even my partner the “forced victim in fear of her life” did not agree with their assumptions and refused to agree that their was any threat from me. My charge was assault police because an officer scratched his finger while trying to force handcuffs on me in front of my young children and neighbours. It taught me that police officers make up their own minds and will happily tell blatant lies to suit themselves. Before this incident I would have never believed it, I stupidly thought they would be my protectors.

#27
KeenGolfer2:57 pm, 08 Aug 11

aceofspades said :

Including the lazy old pen pushing station officers. What is the average age of general duties officers on the beat?

The figures quoted were from ACT Policing, that’s general duties. There are no “lazy old pen pushing station officers”. There’s an officer in command of the station, and almost every one else in the station is “on the beat”.

It sounds like you were involved in a family violence incident, for which the AFP is pro-arrest. It’s not uncommon for women, even with obvious injuries, to deny to police that anything has taken place. Most people would be surprised at how many family violence incidents police attend.

Handcuffing is never “forced” unless the person being handcuffed is resisting arrest or non-compliant. If the person is compliant it’s very easy and there is certainly no force required. I think you’re not telling the full story.

Family violence may include, but is not limited to, criminal behaviours such as:

•assault (for example slapping, punching, kicking, grabbing, pushing)
•threats to physically harm a person
•confining a person against their will, etc

http://www.police.act.gov.au/community-safety/abuse-and-family-violence.aspx

#28
aceofspades4:16 pm, 08 Aug 11

KeenGolfer said :

aceofspades said :

Including the lazy old pen pushing station officers. What is the average age of general duties officers on the beat?

The figures quoted were from ACT Policing, that’s general duties. There are no “lazy old pen pushing station officers”. There’s an officer in command of the station, and almost every one else in the station is “on the beat”.

It sounds like you were involved in a family violence incident, for which the AFP is pro-arrest. It’s not uncommon for women, even with obvious injuries, to deny to police that anything has taken place. Most people would be surprised at how many family violence incidents police attend.

Handcuffing is never “forced” unless the person being handcuffed is resisting arrest or non-compliant. If the person is compliant it’s very easy and there is certainly no force required. I think you’re not telling the full story.

Family violence may include, but is not limited to, criminal behaviours such as:

•assault (for example slapping, punching, kicking, grabbing, pushing)
•threats to physically harm a person
•confining a person against their will, etc

http://www.police.act.gov.au/community-safety/abuse-and-family-violence.aspx

Believe what you like, quote whatever you like. Yes I resisted police, there was never any physical violence between me and my then de facto. She was drunk, and a friend of hers heard over the phone an argument we were having about her going out all night and leaving me to look after three young children. The friend then rang police. They attended the premises and took one look at me and one look at her with children and without asking me anything about the situation insisted on taking me away. They kept asking her if she was in fear of her life and she kept repeating no she wasn’t. I kept trying to tell them that she had a alcohol problem and they were not interested in hearing what I had to say they were only interested in hearing her say that she was in fear of her life. The officers were asked to leave by both my de facto and I but refused. In court a completely different story was produced. Obviously both officers told an identical story and produced notebooks that were never present saying they had asked my de facto if she was in fear of her life and that she had said yes. They claimed that furniture had been pulled over and smashed in a scuffle with me but of course this never happened either. We watched both officers sink their heads to the ground as my de facto stood in court and said exactly what I had been trying to tell them that she had an alcohol problem. I was pinned to the ground and hand cuffed so tightly that blood circulation was lost and nerve damage was done. The nurse who tested my nerves also said that it was not uncommon for this damage to be done by police handcuffs. A restraining order which we totally ignored was forced on us by police against both our wills. My charges were resist police and assault police. I have never had anything to do with police or domestic violence since but the end story is the same. I don’t trust police officers as I have watched them lie standing in court and I have watched them manufacture evidence. They came into my home and assaulted me. They brought on my dislike for them themselves. This was many years ago and is pretty well my only experience with police but my despise for them remains. My de facto was hugely apologetic over the situation and paid all my fines and expenses but the whole situation was a huge drain on family resources. Police did not help us in any way shape or form, they only caused much grief and hardship. I would never seek help from police again.

#29
Thumper6:08 pm, 08 Aug 11

While I admire the Libs sentiments in reality this will make no difference unless the judiciary strats handing out stronger sentences, therefore it is ultimately pointless.

#30
vg8:03 pm, 08 Aug 11

Som aceofspades, were the offences proven against you? I’m guessing yes, but it was all a great conspiracy, wasn’t it

Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP
Advertisement

Halloween in Australia?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.