Does the Children and Young People Act 2008 need changing?

johnboy 6 December 2010 17

letter [Click to view]

On 25 November the above email was sent in, instructing us to remove stories which the Department of Disability, Housing, and Community Services considered to be in breach of the Children and Young People Act 2008.

Those stories have now been removed.

But the larger issue is that they were doing nothing other than accurately, and in context, reporting on the published judgments of the ACT’s Supreme Court.

I humbly submit that any law which criminalises the act of disseminating information in published judgments of the court needs some more work.

Should the protection of the Act apply for all time in serious cases, particularly when there is ongoing criminality as an adult?

Children and Young People Act 2008

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
17 Responses to Does the Children and Young People Act 2008 need changing?
Filter
Order
Pandy Pandy 7:12 am 07 Dec 10

Oh I should say: “Google Cache” heh heh

Pandy Pandy 6:56 am 07 Dec 10

Never be associated with the childhood crime me thinks.

However, one adult will now have a Facebook “mully” dedication site very soon.

fgzk fgzk 9:02 pm 06 Dec 10

Waiting For Godot said :

Garbage. Why are we protecting these little bastards? Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done. It is sobering to note that if the railway killing in Britain had happened in NSW or the ACT we would never have known the names of the killers. While names of kiddy thugs are suppressed (and remain suppressed forever) democracy and free speech is at risk.

Does the Children and Young People Act 2008 need changing?

No. Its the adult thug quoted above that needs to change. Children obviously still need protection from the WFG’s of this world. Its not uncommon on RA for “Adults” to support violence against child criminals. This would show a very real need to protect the identities of children and young people, from the “Adults” of the community.

I’m surprised that its taken DHCS this long. They obviously have not had time to read the rest of the site.

JB I think you have encouraged the vilification of named young people in Canberra. You may have even profited from it.

Its funny.

cranky cranky 6:39 pm 06 Dec 10

Make that assumption.

cranky cranky 6:39 pm 06 Dec 10

Am I correct in the aasumption that if a juvenile commits, and is found guilty of, a crime, said juvenile can NEVER be named during their ongoing life of crime?

Waiting For Godot Waiting For Godot 5:52 pm 06 Dec 10

Garbage. Why are we protecting these little bastards? Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done. It is sobering to note that if the railway killing in Britain had happened in NSW or the ACT we would never have known the names of the killers. While names of kiddy thugs are suppressed (and remain suppressed forever) democracy and free speech is at risk.

georgesgenitals georgesgenitals 3:38 pm 06 Dec 10

The court record did not refer to the specific crime in question (as a juvenile). It named the person only in relation to the crime being dealt with, and I think referred to ‘earlier events’ without detail.

I joined the dots only by looking at this website.

Mods – if this is to controversial a post, delete away…

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 2:36 pm 06 Dec 10

Children make mistakes, the point of the CaYP Bt is to give them second (or higher) chances.
If they want to throw those chamber back into the face of the community, stop linking them to childhood crimes and let them have consequences.

Mr System Overhaul is getting all the benefits that the court system can provide but without most of the downsides.
If wants a profile with a criminal reputation, let him have it.

Serenace1 Serenace1 2:07 pm 06 Dec 10

Non publication of offenders is usually in the interests of justice. Of course you can always go and sit in the court room like the majority of Canberra Times reporters. They are like pigeons squabbling around to see which name is represented only by their initials on the lists. Pathetic. If a judge says don’t print it, don’t be a Derryn (Champion of the victims), don’t print it. And if you just have to, talk to a lawyer.

p1 p1 1:53 pm 06 Dec 10

Hypothetical – I am murdered, and the police catch the offended red handed.

Canberra Times reports that the killer is the same man who killed Clea Rose.

WIN TV reports that I was killed by [insert name here].

Which media outlet is charged with releasing the forbidden information?

Erg0 Erg0 1:37 pm 06 Dec 10

Based purely on my own assumptions, I suspect that the law prevents someone from being identified as having committed an offence as a juvenile, though you can obviously still identify them in relation to crimes they commit later as an adult. Then you have people like the [Censored], who isn’t identified by name in relation to unrelated adult criminal activity, possibly because the media can’t help but mention who he is when they report on what he’s been up to lately.

johnboy johnboy 1:36 pm 06 Dec 10

My understanding is that at some point after publication the Court redacted its judgments.

But if the court struggles to comply with the law one must wonder if the law needs some work.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 1:27 pm 06 Dec 10

Doesn’t this mean that the court library was itself in breach, and instead they’ve just shot the messenger?

Perhaps overhaul throughout the system, Before reinforcing a dysfunctional law every year?

Antagonist Antagonist 1:18 pm 06 Dec 10

The information has been made publicly available by the ACT Supreme Court. I was under the impression that a published court judgement was a public document – no different to the APS Gazette, Hansard etc. Publishing a court judgement

Please tell us, Mr Hehir: Will you be sending the same written threat to the ACT Supreme Court? I would really like to know how THAT one goes for you!

D2 D2 12:52 pm 06 Dec 10

This is idiotic.

If the judgements have been published then they’re ostinsibly in breach of this Act.

Grail Grail 12:49 pm 06 Dec 10

sepi, the names are already published in the court records.

sepi sepi 12:43 pm 06 Dec 10

I dont’ mind if names of criminals under 18 cannot be published.

Where is goes wrong is in those cases of ongoing crime – does this mean their name can never be linked to any crime, even unrelated future crimes. That part I don’t really understand. Or is it becuase they are continuously on parole for their previous child offences, so they never really move on (legally) from them, so we can never name them.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site