Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) Bill 2024

High-Level Summary

Amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 to: provide that the consent of the Attorney-General will not be required for proceedings relating to genocide and related atrocity crimes; and remove the restrictions on review of decisions of the Attorney-General to give or refuse consent to institute proceedings for such offences.


Summary
The bill affects the Criminal Code Act 1995 by repealing sections 268.121 and 268.122, which currently require the Attorney-General's written consent to commence proceedings related to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. This amendment aims to eliminate the potential conflict of interest and to ensure that these proceedings can be initiated without government bias.

From the explanatory memo:
The practical impact of this Bill is that the consent of the Attorney-General will not be required for proceedings relating to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against the administration of the justice of the International Criminal Court commenced after the commencement of the Act. It further removes the restrictions on review of decisions of the Attorney-General to give or refuse consent to institute proceedings for such offences made prior to the commencement of the Act.

Argument For

Normative Bases

  1. Non-Discrimination
  2. Legal Principle (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Genocide Convention)

The bill should be supported because it aligns Australia's domestic law with its international obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. By removing the Attorney-General's fiat, it ensures unbiased and fair access to justice for victims and supports the principles of equality before the law and non-discrimination as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


Argument Against
Normative Bases
  1. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection

One might argue against the bill by suggesting that removing the Attorney-General's oversight could lead to politically motivated or frivolous prosecutions, which could burden the legal system and divert resources from other important areas. The current requirement for the Attorney-General's consent may serve as a necessary check to ensure that only cases with sufficient merit proceed. Without this check, there could be increased risks of abuse of the judicial process [Judgment].


Date:

2024-02-07

Status:

Not Proceeding

Sponsor:

THORPE, Sen Lidia

Portfolio:

Unspecified

Categories:

Discrimination / Human Rights, Democratic Institutions, Criminal Law Reform

Timeline:
07/02/2024
26/03/2025

Comments (0)