CRIMINAL LAW (UNLAWFUL
CONSORTING AND PROHIBITED INSIGNIA) BILL 2021
735. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Attorney General:
I
have a supplementary question. Is it not the case that it is a requirement to
have a reasonable belief that the indictable offence will or could occur
before a police officer can disrupt consorting between convicted paedophiles,
and is this an additional responsibility for officers in relation to this sort
of offence?
Mr J.R.
QUIGLEY replied:
An officer does not have to have a reasonable
belief that a person is going to commit an offence. This is who a consorting
notice will issue to once our great bill becomes law—the strongest bill
in Australia, might I add. The person is a relevant
offender who has consorted or is consorting with another relevant offender—''relevant
offender'' is defined in the
bill—and the officer suspects, on reasonable grounds, that that person
is likely to consort with another relevant offender. We know that the
definition of ''consort'' includes even accepting an invitation
to meet through a third party. The test for issuing the consorting notice is
whether the officer considers it appropriate to issue the notice in order to
disrupt or restrict the capacity to engage in an indictable offence. This is
pretty tough legislation. The test for it is the officer's belief of
the mere appropriateness, not reasonable belief, to issue the notice for the
purpose of suppressing criminal activity.