Page127 - Week 01 - Thursday, 3 December 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . 2020 Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to suspect the person’s total wealth exceeds the value of the person’s wealth that was lawfully acquired, that the whole or part of the person’s wealth was derived from serious criminal activity, and that the property may be required to satisfy an unexplained wealth order.
The new unexplained wealth scheme included a provision that enabled a person subject to an unexplained wealth restraining order to apply for some or all of their property to be excluded from the restraining order. The court must grant an exclusion only if it is satisfied, among other things, that the property is not required to be restrained to satisfy an unexplained wealth order.
Currently, there is some ambiguity as to whether a person whose property is subject to an unexplained wealth restraining order can apply to have property excluded relying on the restraining order exclusion provisions that are in the act to deal with applications for exclusion of property from other types of restraining orders. These other exclusion order provisions do not require the court to be satisfied that the property does not need to be restrained to satisfy an unexplained wealth order.
The amendments to the Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act make it clear that individuals subject to an unexplained wealth restraining order must use the particular provisions in the act that are part of the unexplained wealth scheme to seek any exclusion of property from an unexplained wealth restraining order. This will ensure that the unexplained wealth scheme operates as intended and, importantly, the court cannot exclude property from an unexplained wealth restraining order unless the court is satisfied that the property is not required to satisfy an unexplained wealth order.
Secondly, the bill will amend the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act provisions relating to intensive correction orders. An intensive correction order allows an offender to serve a sentence of imprisonment in the community under strict conditions. If an offender who is serving an intensive correction order is convicted of a new offence punishable by imprisonment, this is a serious breach of a core condition of the order, and the court which imposed the intensive correction order must cancel the order, unless cancellation is not in the interests of justice. Where an intensive correction order is cancelled, the offender must serve the remainder of their sentence by full-time imprisonment.
The amendments made by the bill clarify the process for bringing an offender who is serving an intensive correction order when convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment before the appropriate court. The amendments also clarify which court must deal with the intensive correction order breach, depending on which court made or amended the intensive correction order and which court convicts the offender for the new offence.
Thirdly, the bill will amend the provisions of the Criminal Code establishing the offence of serious vilification. This offence is an important protection against the most extreme and threatening forms of discrimination. The amendments made by the bill will rectify a drafting error in the definition of one of the elements of the offence. This error arose when amendments were made to the offence provisions, and a consequential cross-referencing change was not included. The bill does not change the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . 2020 Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video