❓ The Attorney General's response to questions about the Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Bill 2008 defends the proposed changes, arguing for judicial discretion in sentencing for murder in exceptional cases, while maintaining a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment.
AnsweredQoN 90Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (HOMICIDE) BILL 2008
I refer to this morning’s proposed amendments in the Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Bill 2008. (1) Will it now be the case that, for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, the penalty for murder will no longer be mandatory life imprisonment? (2) Did any agency involved in law enforcement in Western Australia, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions or Western Australia Police, recommend the end to mandatory life imprisonment for murder? (3) If this bill is passed, what control will this Parliament have over the categories of cases in which judges will now be able to give softer penalties to convicted murders? Mr J.A. McGINTY
I refer to this morning’s proposed amendments in the Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Bill 2008. (1) Will it now be the case that, for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, the penalty for murder will no longer be mandatory life imprisonment? (2) Did any agency involved in law enforcement in Western Australia, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions or Western Australia Police, recommend the end to mandatory life imprisonment for murder? (3) If this bill is passed, what control will this Parliament have over the categories of cases in which judges will now be able to give softer penalties to convicted murders? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) This is one piece of legislation that I had hoped would enjoy the support of Parliament. It is quite clear now that the Liberal Party is indicating its lack of support for the legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
(1) Will it now be the case that, for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, the penalty for murder will no longer be mandatory life imprisonment? (2) Did any agency involved in law enforcement in Western Australia, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions or Western Australia Police, recommend the end to mandatory life imprisonment for murder? (3) If this bill is passed, what control will this Parliament have over the categories of cases in which judges will now be able to give softer penalties to convicted murders? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) This is one piece of legislation that I had hoped would enjoy the support of Parliament. It is quite clear now that the Liberal Party is indicating its lack of support for the legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
(2) Did any agency involved in law enforcement in Western Australia, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions or Western Australia Police, recommend the end to mandatory life imprisonment for murder? (3) If this bill is passed, what control will this Parliament have over the categories of cases in which judges will now be able to give softer penalties to convicted murders? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) This is one piece of legislation that I had hoped would enjoy the support of Parliament. It is quite clear now that the Liberal Party is indicating its lack of support for the legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
(3) If this bill is passed, what control will this Parliament have over the categories of cases in which judges will now be able to give softer penalties to convicted murders? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) This is one piece of legislation that I had hoped would enjoy the support of Parliament. It is quite clear now that the Liberal Party is indicating its lack of support for the legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) This is one piece of legislation that I had hoped would enjoy the support of Parliament. It is quite clear now that the Liberal Party is indicating its lack of support for the legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
(1)-(3) This is one piece of legislation that I had hoped would enjoy the support of Parliament. It is quite clear now that the Liberal Party is indicating its lack of support for the legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
(1) Will it now be the case that, for the first time in the history of this jurisdiction, the penalty for murder will no longer be mandatory life imprisonment? (2) Did any agency involved in law enforcement in Western Australia, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions or Western Australia Police, recommend the end to mandatory life imprisonment for murder? (3) If this bill is passed, what control will this Parliament have over the categories of cases in which judges will now be able to give softer penalties to convicted murders? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) This is one piece of legislation that I had hoped would enjoy the support of Parliament. It is quite clear now that the Liberal Party is indicating its lack of support for the legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
(2) Did any agency involved in law enforcement in Western Australia, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions or Western Australia Police, recommend the end to mandatory life imprisonment for murder? (3) If this bill is passed, what control will this Parliament have over the categories of cases in which judges will now be able to give softer penalties to convicted murders? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) This is one piece of legislation that I had hoped would enjoy the support of Parliament. It is quite clear now that the Liberal Party is indicating its lack of support for the legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
(3) If this bill is passed, what control will this Parliament have over the categories of cases in which judges will now be able to give softer penalties to convicted murders? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) This is one piece of legislation that I had hoped would enjoy the support of Parliament. It is quite clear now that the Liberal Party is indicating its lack of support for the legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(3) This is one piece of legislation that I had hoped would enjoy the support of Parliament. It is quite clear now that the Liberal Party is indicating its lack of support for the legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
(1)-(3) This is one piece of legislation that I had hoped would enjoy the support of Parliament. It is quite clear now that the Liberal Party is indicating its lack of support for the legislation. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : That will come as a bitter blow to many of the families of people in this state who have been murdered as a result of one punch. It will come as a bitter blow to those families who have been torn apart as a result of dangerous driving causing death. When I gave the second reading speech today, it seemed, from the nods of approval from members opposite, that the families who were sitting in the public gallery could look forward to the expeditious passage of this legislation. It will also come as a considerable blow to families such as that of young Sofia, the eight-year-old who was murdered in the most gruesome circumstances in a shopping centre in Perth’s southern suburbs, who found that the existing homicide law was incapable of inadequately dealing with her case. The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
The law was incapable of successfully laying the most serious charge in the Criminal Code—namely, wilful murder—against Dante Arthurs. When it came time to sentence, the court found itself so constricted that it handed out the maximum penalty available—a 13-year non-parole period in the context of a life imprisonment sentence. They are the problems with this legislation. As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
As we all know, a mercy killing, if I can use that as an example, in which somebody breaks the law and terminates the life of a loved one at his or her request in an act of love, is currently treated exactly the same as a serial killing—exactly the same as Dante Arthurs. We must have a sensible homicide law in this state that enables cases to be dealt with differently rather than what the extreme right-wing member for Murdoch, as he is now displaying himself, is advocating. He wants to hang all killers high. He has taken only a few days to reveal his true colours. Tom Percy, an active member of the Liberal Party, said that the member for Murdoch is taking the Liberal Party to an extreme position. Tom Percy condemned the member for Murdoch. I thought that was a bit unfair because the member had not really had the opportunity to show his true colours. Tom Percy has shown that he is a man of great insight when it comes to the member for Murdoch. The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
The new laws presume. There is a presumptive penalty of mandatory life imprisonment for all future murders here in Western Australia. That is what the new law that I introduced this morning provides. There will be the occasional exceptional case, such as that of the battered woman, who, after decades of family, sexual, physical and emotional abuse, snaps and kills her husband or her partner. Should she be treated the same as the Claremont serial killer or Dante Arthurs? Any sensible person—as a result of this question, I do not include the member for Murdoch in that category—would say that of course she should not be treated in the same way. That law came about as a result of consideration by the Law Reform Commission of a sensible approach to looking at these questions for the future. We needed to establish a regime in which the presumption is that the penalty will be mandatory life imprisonment. The exemptions are twofold: firstly, where it would be manifestly unjust; and, secondly, where there is no threat imposed to the community. In those circumstances, with written reasons, the court will be empowered to do what it does in most other jurisdictions in Australia—sentence someone to up to 20 years’ imprisonment. I think that is sensible.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.