50 signatures reached
To: Queensland Government, Australian Government
Right To A Fair Trial Within A Reasonable Period QLD
Supply Fundamental Humans Rights to Brits, Kiwi’s and all Australian Visa Holders.
Conflict between Queensland and Federal legislation, means that if a not guilty person, decides to fight a criminal charge, even a minor one; currently they will be remanded in Custody or detained in immigration detention for roughly four years, awaiting trial. Of Cause 99% either accept deportation without trial or simply plead guilty to a crime they did not commit, to reduce their time in detention.
Why is this important?
This can happen to any visa holder. If you are charged with a crime you did not commit in Queensland you have three options.
1. Accept visa cancellation and deportation without conviction.
2. Accept a criminal conviction and deportation without trial.
3. Wait for in excess of four years remanded in custody, or in immigration detention for a trial date.
Whilst you wait for four years you are unable to work and support your family.
On conviction in Queensland, most people charged with murder are convicted of Manslaughter, and are sentenced to 8-9 years (2.5-4.5 years of which will be served in prison). This means someone wrongly accused of a crime who is a visa holder, on the most trivial charge, spends longer detained or incarcerated than almost any convicted person except convicted Murderers.
This is unlawful, but is accepted best practice in Queensland.
Surely no visa should be cancelled prior to a conviction bring recorded.
Also a charge may never exceed 12 months progressing to trial for a detained or remanded person.
Further, time in detention awaiting trial, should never exceed the base (incarcerated) sentence, let alone the head sentence.
The Crown (Federal Government) interfering in a Queensland charge, by cancelling the visa of a defendant was expressly protected at the time the Criminal Code was written. Now QLD Police request that the Federal Government cancel any charged persons visa, as it gains them an insurmountable advantage.
Clough v Leahy, Griffith CJ, speaking for the Court, had said[200]:
"Nor can the Crown interfere with the administration of the course of justice. It is not to be supposed that the Crown would do such a thing; but, if persons acting under a Commission from the Crown were to do acts which, if done by private persons, would amount to an unlawful interference with the course of justice, the act would be unlawful, and would be punishable."