❓ Question regarding whether mandatory sentencing laws cover off-duty police officers assaulted by reason of their office. The Attorney General clarifies the legislation's focus is on whether the officer was acting in the course of duty, including self-identification as such.
AnsweredQoN 329Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MANDATORY SENTENCING LAWS — OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICERS
I refer the Attorney General to comments made by the Premier following reports of an assault on an off-duty police officer that indicated that the proposed mandatory sentencing laws will not cover off-duty police. Given that the amendments to the Criminal Code introduced by the Labor government in April 2008 clearly afforded protection to officers whether or not they were on duty, while more than doubling the penalties for assaults on them or other public officers, is it right to say that off-duty police officers who are assaulted by reason of the office they hold are not in fact protected or covered by the government’s mandatory sentencing proposal? Mr C.C. PORTER
I refer the Attorney General to comments made by the Premier following reports of an assault on an off-duty police officer that indicated that the proposed mandatory sentencing laws will not cover off-duty police. Given that the amendments to the Criminal Code introduced by the Labor government in April 2008 clearly afforded protection to officers whether or not they were on duty, while more than doubling the penalties for assaults on them or other public officers, is it right to say that off-duty police officers who are assaulted by reason of the office they hold are not in fact protected or covered by the government’s mandatory sentencing proposal? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Mindarie for his question and welcome him to his new position on the shadow front bench. I guess for me I am out of the frying pan and into the great unknown! It is a very good question. I am not familiar with the — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are going to be burnt to a crisp! Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the member like that allegory? I think it is a very good question. I am not actually familiar with the particular circumstances the Premier was referring to in terms of the actual nuts and bolts of the offending. The distinction in both the legislation that the member was referring to—in which section 318 of the Criminal Code was amended—and indeed our bill is that the trigger point for the legislation will not necessarily be whether the officer is off or on duty, but of course whether the officer is acting in the course of his duty. What would have to happen, in those circumstances generally, as the member would well know—although it is a tricky little question—is that the officer would have to be acting in the course of his duty. Part of that would have to be that he identifies himself as so acting. I am not sure, in the specific circumstances which the member has related and upon which the Premier was commenting, whether the officer met those two criteria. However, if he did, he would fall both within the auspices of our legislation with respect to mandatory sentencing and the Labor Party’s previous amendments to section 318.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for Mindarie for his question and welcome him to his new position on the shadow front bench. I guess for me I am out of the frying pan and into the great unknown! It is a very good question. I am not familiar with the — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are going to be burnt to a crisp! Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the member like that allegory? I think it is a very good question. I am not actually familiar with the particular circumstances the Premier was referring to in terms of the actual nuts and bolts of the offending. The distinction in both the legislation that the member was referring to—in which section 318 of the Criminal Code was amended—and indeed our bill is that the trigger point for the legislation will not necessarily be whether the officer is off or on duty, but of course whether the officer is acting in the course of his duty. What would have to happen, in those circumstances generally, as the member would well know—although it is a tricky little question—is that the officer would have to be acting in the course of his duty. Part of that would have to be that he identifies himself as so acting. I am not sure, in the specific circumstances which the member has related and upon which the Premier was commenting, whether the officer met those two criteria. However, if he did, he would fall both within the auspices of our legislation with respect to mandatory sentencing and the Labor Party’s previous amendments to section 318.
I thank the member for Mindarie for his question and welcome him to his new position on the shadow front bench. I guess for me I am out of the frying pan and into the great unknown! It is a very good question. I am not familiar with the — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are going to be burnt to a crisp! Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the member like that allegory? I think it is a very good question. I am not actually familiar with the particular circumstances the Premier was referring to in terms of the actual nuts and bolts of the offending. The distinction in both the legislation that the member was referring to—in which section 318 of the Criminal Code was amended—and indeed our bill is that the trigger point for the legislation will not necessarily be whether the officer is off or on duty, but of course whether the officer is acting in the course of his duty. What would have to happen, in those circumstances generally, as the member would well know—although it is a tricky little question—is that the officer would have to be acting in the course of his duty. Part of that would have to be that he identifies himself as so acting. I am not sure, in the specific circumstances which the member has related and upon which the Premier was commenting, whether the officer met those two criteria. However, if he did, he would fall both within the auspices of our legislation with respect to mandatory sentencing and the Labor Party’s previous amendments to section 318.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are going to be burnt to a crisp! Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the member like that allegory? I think it is a very good question. I am not actually familiar with the particular circumstances the Premier was referring to in terms of the actual nuts and bolts of the offending. The distinction in both the legislation that the member was referring to—in which section 318 of the Criminal Code was amended—and indeed our bill is that the trigger point for the legislation will not necessarily be whether the officer is off or on duty, but of course whether the officer is acting in the course of his duty. What would have to happen, in those circumstances generally, as the member would well know—although it is a tricky little question—is that the officer would have to be acting in the course of his duty. Part of that would have to be that he identifies himself as so acting. I am not sure, in the specific circumstances which the member has related and upon which the Premier was commenting, whether the officer met those two criteria. However, if he did, he would fall both within the auspices of our legislation with respect to mandatory sentencing and the Labor Party’s previous amendments to section 318.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the member like that allegory? I think it is a very good question. I am not actually familiar with the particular circumstances the Premier was referring to in terms of the actual nuts and bolts of the offending. The distinction in both the legislation that the member was referring to—in which section 318 of the Criminal Code was amended—and indeed our bill is that the trigger point for the legislation will not necessarily be whether the officer is off or on duty, but of course whether the officer is acting in the course of his duty. What would have to happen, in those circumstances generally, as the member would well know—although it is a tricky little question—is that the officer would have to be acting in the course of his duty. Part of that would have to be that he identifies himself as so acting. I am not sure, in the specific circumstances which the member has related and upon which the Premier was commenting, whether the officer met those two criteria. However, if he did, he would fall both within the auspices of our legislation with respect to mandatory sentencing and the Labor Party’s previous amendments to section 318.
I am not sure, in the specific circumstances which the member has related and upon which the Premier was commenting, whether the officer met those two criteria. However, if he did, he would fall both within the auspices of our legislation with respect to mandatory sentencing and the Labor Party’s previous amendments to section 318.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for Mindarie for his question and welcome him to his new position on the shadow front bench. I guess for me I am out of the frying pan and into the great unknown! It is a very good question. I am not familiar with the — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are going to be burnt to a crisp! Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the member like that allegory? I think it is a very good question. I am not actually familiar with the particular circumstances the Premier was referring to in terms of the actual nuts and bolts of the offending. The distinction in both the legislation that the member was referring to—in which section 318 of the Criminal Code was amended—and indeed our bill is that the trigger point for the legislation will not necessarily be whether the officer is off or on duty, but of course whether the officer is acting in the course of his duty. What would have to happen, in those circumstances generally, as the member would well know—although it is a tricky little question—is that the officer would have to be acting in the course of his duty. Part of that would have to be that he identifies himself as so acting. I am not sure, in the specific circumstances which the member has related and upon which the Premier was commenting, whether the officer met those two criteria. However, if he did, he would fall both within the auspices of our legislation with respect to mandatory sentencing and the Labor Party’s previous amendments to section 318.
I thank the member for Mindarie for his question and welcome him to his new position on the shadow front bench. I guess for me I am out of the frying pan and into the great unknown! It is a very good question. I am not familiar with the — Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are going to be burnt to a crisp! Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the member like that allegory? I think it is a very good question. I am not actually familiar with the particular circumstances the Premier was referring to in terms of the actual nuts and bolts of the offending. The distinction in both the legislation that the member was referring to—in which section 318 of the Criminal Code was amended—and indeed our bill is that the trigger point for the legislation will not necessarily be whether the officer is off or on duty, but of course whether the officer is acting in the course of his duty. What would have to happen, in those circumstances generally, as the member would well know—although it is a tricky little question—is that the officer would have to be acting in the course of his duty. Part of that would have to be that he identifies himself as so acting. I am not sure, in the specific circumstances which the member has related and upon which the Premier was commenting, whether the officer met those two criteria. However, if he did, he would fall both within the auspices of our legislation with respect to mandatory sentencing and the Labor Party’s previous amendments to section 318.
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are going to be burnt to a crisp! Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the member like that allegory? I think it is a very good question. I am not actually familiar with the particular circumstances the Premier was referring to in terms of the actual nuts and bolts of the offending. The distinction in both the legislation that the member was referring to—in which section 318 of the Criminal Code was amended—and indeed our bill is that the trigger point for the legislation will not necessarily be whether the officer is off or on duty, but of course whether the officer is acting in the course of his duty. What would have to happen, in those circumstances generally, as the member would well know—although it is a tricky little question—is that the officer would have to be acting in the course of his duty. Part of that would have to be that he identifies himself as so acting. I am not sure, in the specific circumstances which the member has related and upon which the Premier was commenting, whether the officer met those two criteria. However, if he did, he would fall both within the auspices of our legislation with respect to mandatory sentencing and the Labor Party’s previous amendments to section 318.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the member like that allegory? I think it is a very good question. I am not actually familiar with the particular circumstances the Premier was referring to in terms of the actual nuts and bolts of the offending. The distinction in both the legislation that the member was referring to—in which section 318 of the Criminal Code was amended—and indeed our bill is that the trigger point for the legislation will not necessarily be whether the officer is off or on duty, but of course whether the officer is acting in the course of his duty. What would have to happen, in those circumstances generally, as the member would well know—although it is a tricky little question—is that the officer would have to be acting in the course of his duty. Part of that would have to be that he identifies himself as so acting. I am not sure, in the specific circumstances which the member has related and upon which the Premier was commenting, whether the officer met those two criteria. However, if he did, he would fall both within the auspices of our legislation with respect to mandatory sentencing and the Labor Party’s previous amendments to section 318.
I am not sure, in the specific circumstances which the member has related and upon which the Premier was commenting, whether the officer met those two criteria. However, if he did, he would fall both within the auspices of our legislation with respect to mandatory sentencing and the Labor Party’s previous amendments to section 318.
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.