❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses concerns about animal activists contaminating livestock and whether WA legislation adequately protects producers from similar actions and economic loss. The Minister assures that recent amendments to the Criminal Code address trespass, but economic loss is best pursued through civil action.
AnsweredQoN 260Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
The Victorian Farmers Federation was recently disappointed that animal activist Ralph Hahnheuser was found not guilty after admitting to contaminating the food and water supplies of sheep awaiting export from Cape Nelson. (1) Can the minister assure Western Australian producers that relevant legislation is in place in WA to ensure that similar actions will not escape legal punishment? (2) Will the minister assure Western Australian producers that legislation is in place to ensure that the industry will not suffer economic loss? (3) If not, does the government have plans to ensure that relevant legislation will be introduced as an urgent priority? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
(1) Can the minister assure Western Australian producers that relevant legislation is in place in WA to ensure that similar actions will not escape legal punishment? (2) Will the minister assure Western Australian producers that legislation is in place to ensure that the industry will not suffer economic loss? (3) If not, does the government have plans to ensure that relevant legislation will be introduced as an urgent priority? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
(2) Will the minister assure Western Australian producers that legislation is in place to ensure that the industry will not suffer economic loss? (3) If not, does the government have plans to ensure that relevant legislation will be introduced as an urgent priority? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
(3) If not, does the government have plans to ensure that relevant legislation will be introduced as an urgent priority? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
(1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
(3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
(1) Can the minister assure Western Australian producers that relevant legislation is in place in WA to ensure that similar actions will not escape legal punishment? (2) Will the minister assure Western Australian producers that legislation is in place to ensure that the industry will not suffer economic loss? (3) If not, does the government have plans to ensure that relevant legislation will be introduced as an urgent priority? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
(2) Will the minister assure Western Australian producers that legislation is in place to ensure that the industry will not suffer economic loss? (3) If not, does the government have plans to ensure that relevant legislation will be introduced as an urgent priority? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
(3) If not, does the government have plans to ensure that relevant legislation will be introduced as an urgent priority? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
I thank Hon John Fischer for some notice of the question. (1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
(1) I understand that Ralph Hahnheuser was acquitted because the Victorian legislation requires the prosecution to prove that a perpetrator intended to cause economic loss. In the Hahnheuser case, the prosecution was not able to prove such intent to the satisfaction of the court. Recently the Western Australian government amended the Criminal Code to make the act of trespass onto a property in the first place a very serious crime. The amended Criminal Code will come into effect at the end of this month. In the amended code, such trespass carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment and a fine of $12 000. Further, under the Western Australian legislation, the accused has the onus of proving he had a lawful excuse for being on the property. The member can see that although we are talking about first-instance issues, which is quite different from the matter considered by the Victorian Supreme Court, it is a much clearer and easier case for the prosecution to establish in respect of such an illegal act. (2) The aim of the amended trespass laws in Western Australia is to deter a similar occurrence occurring in Western Australia as occurred in Victoria. This will be done through the weight of the penalty given for that serious crime. No legislation can make any industry, state or country immune from the decisions of markets or of trading partners; they will make their own decisions about matters, as has been seen in New Zealand regarding the recent foot and mouth disease threat. (3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
(3) The government does not plan to introduce further legislation for trespass. We have at last achieved a state of law that the state has been looking forward to for a very long time. In addition to the new trespass law, property owners and businesses will continue to have access to civil action against perpetrators of such a trespass that subsequently cause economic loss. As the honourable member is aware, action under civil law requires a different standard of proof than is required in criminal law whereby, effectively, the bar is set much lower. I was a little surprised that civil action was not undertaken in the Hahnheuser case and that the prosecution relied on criminal action only. The prosecution would have had its reasons for doing that. However, I would strongly recommend to any Western Australian business that finds itself in that situation to proceed with a case under civil law.
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.