Alternative Law Journal
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Alternative Law Journal |
|
TAMARA WALSH[*]
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of 'mass private spaces', an increase in the commercialisation of public spaces, and a vigorous trend towards the gentrification of inner city areas.[1] As a result, fewer areas of public space are available for recreational and other non-commercial purposes, and those that are have become the subject of contest between various stakeholders.[2] State governments and local councils have claimed that the streets must be 'cleaned up' and 'reclaimed' by the broader community. However, in their definitions of 'community', those to whom public spaces are most important..... such as homeless people and Indigenous people - have been excluded. The voices of these people are be1ng ignored in debates about the regulation of public space.
This is clearly reflected in the way recent amendments to summary offences law in Queensland were introduced. On 25 November 2003, the Police Powers and Responsibilities and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 (Qld) was passed which, inter alia, introduced amendments to the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act 1931 (Qld) ('Vagrants Act'). The Act was passed without any meaningful community consultation either before or after the tabling of the Bill. These amendments seem to signal a renewed commitment by the Beattie Government to a law and order response to the regulation of public spaces, without regard to the effect that this has on marginalised public space users.
In an attempt to provide these key stakeholders with an opportunity to be heard, the Rights in Public Spaces Action Group (RIPS) conducted a survey of marginalised public space users and their service providers. The survey was aimed at ascertaining their views on the effectiveness of Queensland's vagrancy laws in ensuring the quality use of public spaces by the community. RIPS is a coalition of community agencies, community legal services and academics whose aim is to promote the rights of marginalised people in their use of Queensland's public spaces.[3]
The survey found that marginalised public space users and the community workers who service them agree that public spaces should be regulated to ensure community safety and to enable people to enjoy public spaces without unreasonable interference. However, the respondents strongly disagreed with the Government's views i n what behaviours should and should not be regarded as criminal. This article reports the results of the survey and makes some suggestions for reform, based n the views of the respondents.
Queensland is one of the few jurisdictions in Australia where 'vagrancy' is still an offence. Queensland's Vagrants Act has remained relatively untouched si ce its enactment in 1931, so of course, many of the behaviours said to amount to 'vagrancy' are extremely outdated. Under s 4(1)(k), one who 'begs alms' is included in the definition of a 'vagrant'. 'Habitual drunkenness', where one behaves in a riotous, disorderly or indecent manner in a public place, is also an offence under s 4(1) (c).[4]
Other behaviours said to amount to vagrancy under the Act border on the ridiculous. For example, having 'insufficient lawful means of support' is considered to amount to vagrancy. This provision has Qeen used by police and magistrates to charge and convict people for eating out of garbage bins and sleeping in public places.[5] Further, fortune tellers are still considered 'vagrants' under s 4(1)(o) of the Act, and s 4(1)(h)(ii) states that one who 'is found by night having [their] face blackened or masked, or wearing felt or other slippers, or being dressed in disguise or otherwise disguised, or having in the person's possession any dark lantem, electric torch, or any matches of the kind known as silent matches' with the intent to commit an indictable offence is a vagrant. Clearly, the Act needs to be brought into the 21st century, and various groups and individuals have been lobbying the Government for such changes.
However, changes of the nature introduced by the Police Powers and Responsibilities and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 (Qld) were unexpected. While the replacement of the old s 7 offensive language and offensive behaviour offence with a new offence of 'public nuisance' succeeded in updating the language of the offence, its practical effect remains unchanged.
The old s 7 offence stated:
(1) Any person who, in any public place or so near to any public place that any person who m1ght be therein, and whether any person is therein or not, could view or hear-
(a) sings any obscene song or ballad;
(b) writes or draws any indecent or obscene word, figure, or representation;
(c) uses any profane, Indecent, or obscene language;
(d) uses any threatening, abusive, or insulting words to any person;
(e) behaves in a riotous, violent, disorderly, indecent, offensive, threatening, or insulting manner, shall be liable to a penalty of $100 or to Imprisonment for 6 months ...
The new offence of 'public nuisance' reads:
(1) A person must not commit a public nuisance offence. M mum penalty-10 penalty units or 6 months Imprisonment.
(2) A person commits a public nuisance offence If (a) the person behaves in-
(i) a disorderly way; or (11) an offensive way; or (ii1) a threaten1ng way; or (iv) a violent way; and
(b) the person's behaviour interferes, or is likely to interfere, with the peaceful passage through, or enjoyment of, a public place by a member of the public.
(3) Without limiting subsection (2)-
(a) a person behaves in an offensive way if the person uses offensive, obscene, Indecent or abusive language; and
(b) a person behaves in a threatening way If the person uses threatening language.
(4) It is not necessary for a person to make a complaint about the behaviour of another person before a police officer may start a proceeding against the person for a public nuisance offence ...
An analysis of the old and new provisions suggests that, on the face of it, the new s 7AA does not provide police with any more powers than the old s 7. In the old s 7, as in the new s 7AA, there was no need for a member of the community to make a complaint for the offence to be made out, and the use of the terminology 'disorderly, offensive, threaten1ng or violent' has been retained. The only real change is the maximum monetary penalty, which has risen from $100 to $750.
However, the fact that this provision has been reworked rather than repealed does signal that the Queensland Government is committed to a law and order response to the regulation of public space, and it may signal an intention by the Government to tackle summary offences law reform in a piecemeal rather than a comprehensive fashion. This is a cause for concern for marginalised users of public space who make up the vast majority of those charged with these offences.
In response to suggestions from the Queensland Government that vagrancy laws were to be reformed, RIPS conducted a survey of homeless people in Brisbane and community workers providing services to homeless people throughout Queensland to ascertain their views on the use of the criminal law in the regulation of public spaces. This process of consultation was aimed at giving marginalised public space users and their advocates a chance to have their voices heard.
The survey was conducted from July to November 2003 by social work staff from Caxton Legal Centre in Brisbane. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 marginalised public space users at various locations in inner city Brisbane. A range of client groups participated in the study, including young people, Indigenous people and people with mental illness. The one commonality was that all these respondents were 'homeless' within the Chamberlain definition; that is, they came within the categories of primary homelessness (being without conventional accommodation), secondary homelessness (moving from one form of temporary accommodation to another) or tertiary homeless (living in boarding houses on a medium to long-term basis).[6]
In addition, structured interviews were conducted with 20 community workers who provide services to homeless people in Queensland. Respondents were from a number of city and regional centres throughout the state, including Brisbane, Mount lsa, Rockhampton, Townsville and Cairns. Interviews were conducted in person or by telephone.
The results of the survey showed that homeless people and their service providers agree with the police, · government and the broader community that people should behave appropriately and respectfully in public space. However, the respondents' views differed from those of government with regard to the kinds of behaviour that should be considered 'criminally wrong' as opposed to those which might be considered only 'morally wrong'.
The homeless respondents reported that people beg for poverty-related reasons. Many admitted to having begged for cigarettes or money to enable them to pay for food. shelter, public transport, medical expenses, debts, and drugs and alcohol. Many of those surveyed stated that begging is 'humiliating' but often a practical necessity. One respondent said. 'We have to do it. We have to survive.' Another stated, 'I do it because sometimes I just need more money to get by. I'm on a disability pension for schizophrenia and that's not enough.'
Of the respondents, 97% of the homeless people and 95% of the service providers stated that begging should not be a criminal offence, but many added that if begging behaviour became threatening, violent or aggressive in any way, police should have the power to intervene.
Some respondents reported they were not aware that begging was a crime. For example, one respondent stated. 'I didn't know it was illegal. You have freaked me out'. One service provider stated, 'Begging should not be criminalised ... People should be directed to assistance. Gaol is for people who need to be removed from society.' Another said, 'Asking your fellow man for a cigarette is not begging'.
With regard to public drinking, most of the homeless respondents stated they had little choice but to drink in a public place since they had nowhere else to go. As one respondent said, 'Most people who drink in public space don't have anywhere else to drink It's because of their financial circumstances.' Another said, 'When you are an alcoholic you don't think right, you don't care where you are drinking, you've just got to have one'.
Some respondents, however, drew a line between public drinking and public drunkenness. For example, one homeless respondent said, 'They should be picked up when they are all over the place and pissing people off and slurring their words'.
The service providers agreed that most public drinking was a result of necessity, due to a lack of access to private spaces in which to lawfully drink One respondent said:
It's a class issue ... If you can afford to go to a restaurant that has outdoor dining, you can drink 'til your heart's content ... but what if you can't afford it and you are homeless ... where do you go?
Another stated, 'You have to consider that for homeless people, public space is their home'.
Other respondents reported that a double standard exists between marginalised public space users and more 'acceptable' public space users who drink in public. One respondent, a service provider in a regional centre in northern Queensland, said, 'A lot of Indigenous people. I have been kicked out of public space for drinking where tourists can do it freely'.
Respondents were also asked to comment on the offence of obscene language. Twenty-nine of the 30 homeless people surveyed believed that obscene language should not be a criminal offence, but that if it became threatening or excessively abusive, police should have the power to intervene. Comments made by homeless respondents included:
It's not just the blackfellas or poorfellas that do it [swear]. It's everyone.
It's ridiculous. The police swear, everyone swears. It shouldn't be against the law. I thought that sort of stuff [the criminalisation of obscene language] disappeared long ago.
People shouldn't be able to assault people verbally or scare them. But swearing is on TV, and in music lyrics and stuff.
Both the marginalised public space users and service providers interviewed recognised that, for many people,'obscene' language is as much part of their vocabulary as any other word, and is not intended to cause offence. For example, one homeless respondent stated, 'People should be able to express themselves in the language they choose'. A service provider commented, 'It's not done to shock. Many have limited vocabulary and it is in common usage.'
Further, some respondents made general comments about the regulation of public spaces by the police. Many homeless respondents commented they felt police targeted or 'picked on' them due to their appearance, either because they were homeless or Indigenous. Others stated they felt the police lacked knowledge and understanding of issues such as drug addiction, homelessness and cultural sensitivity. One public space user said:
Sometimes the police would come down on you all the time just 'cos you were homeless. They shouldn't be able to pick on you just 'cos you haven't got shoes or a wallet or you are not clean. It's not your fault.
Another said, 'We people get picked on all the time. To tell you the truth, I'm glad I'm not a blackfella. They cop lotsa shit, poor blokes.'
Some service providers commented on policing strategies, stating that police should refer people to outreach services instead of arresting and fining them for 'antisocial' behaviours. With regard to Indigenous public space users, one service provider noted, 'If they are going to stop the Indigenous people from assembling in the parks they are ultimately stopping their heritage.
The comments made by respondents in this study echo the statements made by homeless people in similar surveys conducted in Australia and around the world.
Many of the homeless respondents in this survey reported that they were treated differently to other public space users whose behaviour was identical to theirs, but was nonetheless tolerated; their service providers confirmed this. This finding is consistent with results of previous research. A recent survey of homeless people accessing pro bono legal advice in Brisbane found that many homeless people believe they are 'picked on' by police as a result of their homeless or Indigenous appearance.[7] A client survey conducted by Hanover Outreach Services in Melbourne made similar findings. One client stated:
The thing is not to attract attention. Never walk around with a blanket-you'll get into trouble ... I try not to stay in the same place two nights in a row because you get noticed. I've been locked up before just for sleeping down a lane.[8]
He went on to say:
I like a drink but I never behave badly. If you drink in public you make trouble for yourself Where else can I drink? I see young guys everywhere sitting at tables on the footpath having a drink in the nice sunshine. They can do that
because they're out the front of a restaurant If I drink on the footpath in the sun, the cops either take my drink, move me on or book me.[9]
Another of Hanover's clients said, The big problem is where do you spend your time if you have no home? You spend it in public because you've got no choice.'[10]
The discriminatory operation of summary offences and vagrancy laws against homeless people and Indigenous people is well documented. The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research reported that Indigenous people comprised over 20 % of all obscene language and offensive behaviour charges in 1998, despite the fact that they represented only 2 % of the NSW population.[11] A 2001 survey of young people who had been 'moved-on' by police in Queensland found that 37% of them were Indigenous, even though Indigenous youth comprised only 4% of the Queensland youth population.[12] And a survey of 164 young people in NSW found that unemployed and homeless young people were more likely to be targeted by security guards in shopping malls.[13] The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the Victorian Law Reform Commission and the Western Australian Law Reform Commission have all acknowledged that public order offences give police wide discretionary powers in deciding who and when to prosecute, and that this has the capacity to result in the selective enforcement of these laws.[14]
Many commentators have recommended the repeal or amendment of these offences to ensure that the potential for misuse is reduced.[15]
Both the homeless and service provider respondents in this survey also noted that homeless people conduct 'vagrant' or 'offensive' behaviour in public spaces not by choice, but because they lack access to private space. For homeless people, the public space they occupy is 'home' to them. It is in public spaces that they experience belonging and purpose. They are members of their own community which lies outside the boundaries of 'mainstream' socialite, and they form attachments to the public places they frequent and the relationships they form there.[16] Since they do not have access to private space, all aspects of their lives must be played out in public, including things that those with homes prefer to do in private, such as drinking alcohol, swearing, urinating and defecating.[17] Far from posing a safety threat to the community, homeless people are merely engaging in behaviour in public space that would be lawful if conducted in private space. [18]
Some respondents in this survey noted the strong connection that Indigenous people have with the land. Some Indigenous people prefer to sleep out in the open and some choose a permanent itinerant lifestyle.[19]
Cultural sensitivity, rather than criminalisation, is required in response. Further, due to the violence which has historically been perpetrated on Indigenous people in this country, many of them feel safer in groups. [20] The fact that they are considered threatening often comes as a surprise to Indigenous public space users who are there merely to socialise.[21]
The findings with regard to begging were also consistent with previous research, which has demonstrated that begging behaviour is inextricably linked with poverty and homelessness. People who beg do so in an attempt to raise enough money to provide themselves with the necessities of life: they tend to report that begging is extremely humiliating, but it is often necessary to enable them to cover basic living costs.[22] As in this survey, prior research has shown that those who beg are often not aware that begging is a criminal offence.[23] This raises important rule of law issues.[24]
Another observation made by some respondents in this survey was that offensive language is now so commonplace that it should not amount to a criminal offence. The meanings and impact of words change over time, and many words which were previously considered obscene are now in common usage in most school yards and workplaces, and on television, radio, and the internet.[25] As Magistrate Heilpem noted in Police v Shannon Thomas Dunn, for some people, 'offensive' language is part of their everyday vocabulary -they do not use it to offend, but as a legitimate form of expression.[26] Further, it has been noted by various commentators that the vast majority of charges for obscene language are for comments directed at police.[27] Often, this 'language' amounts to a reflex action - it is spoken in protest when people feel they are being unfairly dealt with by police. Charging a person with offensive language in such circumstances amounts to punishment for their failure to use a more eloquent expression.[28] Further, since police officers themselves often use the same words as those they charge with offensive language,[29] a punitive response to offensive language by police seems hypocritical.
Broad-scale reform which takes a whole-of-government approach to the issue of public space regulation is required in Queensland, and it is hoped that before any further amendments to summary offences law are introduced, all affected groups will be consulted. The results of the survey offer important information to the Government on the views of marginalised public space users and their service providers.
First, the results suggest that marginalised public space users and their service providers believe that the offence of begging should be repealed. This is because people who beg are usually destitute and have no other reasonable option available to them for raising money to cover their living expenses, and many of those who beg do not even know that it is a criminal offence. There was a recognition by some respondents in this survey that the police should be able to intervene where begging behaviour becomes aggressive. This kind of behaviour is dealt with under s 414 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) which creates an offence of 'demanding property with menaces'.
Second, the responses suggest that homeless people and their service providers believe that public drunkenness should not be a criminal offence. However, many respondents acknowledged that it is sometimes appropriate for drunk and disorderly people to be removed from the streets. The approach of the NSW, Tasmanian and ACT governments provides a good model for these recommendations to be implemented. Under NSW, Tasmanian and ACT legislation, public drunkenness has been decriminalised, but police retain the power to remove intoxicated persons from public places and take them to a safe place while they recover.[30] Alcoholism is a social problem which should be dealt with through the health and social welfare systems, rather than the criminal justice system.[31] Queensland leg1slation should be brought into line with these best practice principles.
Third, the results of the survey suggest that marginalised public space users and their service providers believe that a law and order response to behaviour which amounts to a 'public nuisance' is often inappropriate. Many respondents reported that offensive language and behaviour offences are applied in a discriminatory fashion, particularly against homeless people and Indigenous people.
With regard to offensive language, the courts have concluded that few words may still be considered 'obscene' in our modem society because most of these words are now regularly used in homes, playgrounds and police stations around Australia.[32] As some respondents noted, certain forms of offensive language should be prohibited under the criminal law, particularly language which is threatening. However, threatening violence is an offence under s 75 of the Cnminal Code Act 1899 (Qid) and threatening assault is an offence under s 245. On this basis, there seems no need for a separate offence of offensive language under the Vagrants Act.
With regard to offensive behaviour, much of the behaviour which such a provision might be aimed at regulating is dealt with under the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (eg indecent acts (s 227), assault (s 245)and compromising the safety or health of a member of the public (s 230)). Behaviours considered offensive that are related to poverty or homelessness, such as public urination and defecation, should not be dealt with through the criminal justice system, but rather through the social welfare system and the provision of reasonable public facilities. As long as poverty is to be tolerated, public displays of it must also be tolerated.[33]
Further, other behaviours which might be targeted under the new public nuisance provis1on, such as causing another person anxiety, interfering with trade or business or disrupting any event or gathering in a public place may be dealt with by police by exercising their move-on powers under Chapter 2, Part 4 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).
However, since the repeal of the public nuisance offence does not appear to be likely in the near future, a number of possible amendments to the new provision might be considered to ensure that its operation does not result in injustice to marginalised public space users. First, a requirement of 'reasonable necessity' could be incorporated into the offence, akin to that which must be satisfied before police can use their move-on powers. Section 39 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) states that a person's right to peaceful assembly should not be interfered with through the use of police move-on powers unless this is reasonably necessary in the interests of public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
An equivalent safeguard could be included in the s 7AA offence. Similarly, a requirement that a member of the public, other than a police officer, be present in the public place at the time of the 'offence', and that that person must make a complaint for the offence to be made out, would prevent police from charging people under this offence on the grounds that had someone else been present they might have been offended by the person's conduct.
Alternatively, a defence of 'reasonable excuse' could be incorporated into the new offence, such as that which is available to those charged with offensive conduct or offensive language in NSW (under ss 4 and 4A of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW)). This defence has the potential to reduce the discriminatory impact of offensive language and offensive behaviour laws by allowing the context of the behaviour to be taken into account For example, the defence of reasonable excuse could be available to homeless people who are charged with offensive behaviour for urinating in public. On the facts, since the act of urination cannot be avoided, and must be conducted in public space if there is no private space to retreat to, it seems that a reasonable excuse for th1s 'offending' behaviour may exist. The object of offensive language and offensive behaviour laws is to protect the public from abusive, frightening or threatening situations. Since public urination by homeless people is not aimed at causing offence and could not reasonably be considered capable of arousing fear within members of the public, excusing it would not obstruct the administration of the criminal law. Thus, it seems appropriate that a criminal charge for public urination against homeless people be defensible on the grounds of reasonable excuse. Similarly, the defence of reasonable excuse could be available to defend a charge of offensive language where bad language is directed at a member of the police force as a means of expressing anger or frustration, rather than in a threatening or violent way. The objects of the law would not be obstructed by excusing this kind of behaviour, particularly where the language is used as a legitimate form of expression, rather than with an intention to be offensive.
Offences such as begging, public drunkenness, and offensive language and behaviour purport to protect 'the public' from 'interference' by 'others'. In the Explanatory Note to Queensland's new 'public nuisance' offence, offensive behaviour is stated to include any other kind of behaviour 'that might cause another person to leave a public place'. But whose comfort is being promoted through these laws? Does it matter that the behaviour of a police officer might cause a homeless person to leave a public place which amounts to 'home' for them? Who is 'the public', and who are the 'others'?
Homeless people and their service providers agree that public spaces must be regulated to ensure that members of the public are able to enjoy them without interference. However, existing laws which aim to regulate public spaces often criminalise behaviour conducted in public space which would be lawful if performed in private space. These laws are discriminatory in effect against those members of the public who use public space the most, including homeless people and Indigenous people.
Summary offences law reform is well overdue in Queensland and other states with similar laws. The rights of all members of the public to access and enjoy public spaces should be acknowledged and respected, particularly those to whom public spaces are 'home'. It is time the whole 'public' was put back into 'public space'.
REFERENCES
[*] TAMARA WALSH teaches law at Queensland University of Technology.
© 2004 Tamara Walsh
email: tamara.walsh@qut.edu.au
The author would like to acknowledge the work of Caxton Legal Centre, in particular Narelle Sutherland and Monique Du-Briard, in planning and carrying out the survey discussed in this paper.
[1] B Lipmann. 'The Privatisation of Public Space" (2002) 15(1) Panty 6. Phil Crane and Mike Dee. 'Young People. Public Space and New Urbanism" (2001) 20(1) Youth Stud1es Australia 11. M Morey. "Whose Space is it Anyway' A Study of Young People's Interactions with Security Guards in NSW' (1999) 52(3) Australian Social Work 51. R Wh1te. 'Street Life, Police Practices and Youth Behaviour' in R White and C Alder, The Police and Young People in Australia (1994) 113-124 See also T Walsh. 'Waltzing Matilda One Hundred Years Later: Interactions Between Homeless Persons and the Criminal Justice System 1n Queensland" (2003) 25(1) Sydney Law Review75
[2] R White. "Contested Spaces" (2002) June Rights Now 7, B Drew and A Coleman, "This Place Here is our Home Defining Homelessness Beyond Housing" (1999) 12(2) Panty 16. S James, "Delineating the Dryzone" (1994) 5(2) Polemic 75
[3] A full report on the results of the survey may be found in M Du-Briard, Public Space Public Rights The Views of Marginalised
People Who Use Public Space (2003)
[4] Public drunkenness is also an offence under s164 of the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld)
[5] Moore v Moulds (1981) 7 QL 227, Parry v Denman (District Court of Cairns (Queensland), 23 May 1997) in A West
'Sentencing for Vagrancy' (2000) 21(1) The Queensland Lawyer 12, see also T Walsh, above n 1
[6] C Chamberlain and D MacKenzie, 'Understanding Contemporary Homelessness Issues of Defimt1on and Mean1ng' (1992) 27(4) Australian Journal of Social Issues 274.
[7] T Walsh and C Klease, 'Down and 0ut? Homelessness and Citizenship' (forthcoming)
[8] C Middenforp, 'Homelessness and Public Space Unwelcome Visitors' (2002) 15(1) Panty 18. See also J Sanders, 'Youth + Street= Cnme?' (2000) 13(6) Panty 9
[9] Middenforp, above n 8.
[10] Ibid
[11] NSW Bureau of Crime Stat1st1cs and Research, Race and Offensive Language Charges (1999); Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council, Policing Public Order (1999)
[12] P Spooner, 'Moving in the Wrong Direction' (2001) 20(1) Youth Studies Australia 27
[13] M Morey, above n1
[14] Victorian Law Reform Commission, Summary Offences Act 1966 and Vagrancy Act 1966 A Review (1992); Western Australian Law Reform Commission, Report on Police Act Offences (1992), E Johnston, Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody National Report Overview and Recommendations (1991)
[15] See Royal Commission in Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Recommendations 86, 87, above n 14, L Schetzer, 'Summit
Strategies to Reduce Over-Representation in the NSW justice System' (1999) July Rights Now 14, K P1ne and S Comack, 'What iis Obscene -the Language or the Arrest that Follows?' (1993) Aboriginal Justice Issues 147, Victorian Law Reform Commission, above n 14
[16] A Coleman, 'Public Spaces, Public Stones: Long-Term Homelessness in Fortitude Valley' (2002) 15(1) Panty 7, J Roland, 'When Outside is All You Have The R1ghts of Homeless People in Public Space' (2000) 14(5) Panty 2, B Drew and Anne Coleman, above n 2
[17] C Goldie, 'Living in Public Space A Human Rights Wasteland?' [2002] AltLawJl 98; (2002) 27(6) Alternative Law Journal 277, B Drew and A Coleman, above n 2
[18] See P Lynch, 'Begg1ng for Change Homelessness and the Law' (2002) 26(3) Melbourne University Law Review 690
[19] C Goldie, above n 16, P Memmott, 'Response to Indigenous People Living in Public Spaces' (2002) 15(1) Panty 11, W Bartlett Day, 'A V1ew from the Long Grass' (1999) 12(3) Panty 21
[20] C Quayle, 'It's Public Space - Get Out of My Face'' (2000) December Rights Now 22
[21] Ibid See also J White, 'Power/ Knowledge and Public Space Policing the "Aboriginal Towns'" (1997) 30 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 275
[22] M Horn and M Cooke, A Question of Begging A Study of the Extent and Nature of Begging in the City of Melbourne (2001), H Dean and M Melrose, 'Easy Pickings or Hard Profession? Begging as an Economic Activity', in H Dean (ed) Begging Questions Street Level Economic Activity and Society Policy Failure (1999), G Fooks and C Pantazis, 'Criminalisation of Homelessness, Begging and Street Living' in P Kennett and A Marsh (eds) Homelessness Exploring the New Terrain (1999) See also
T Walsh, 'Defending Begging Offenders' (2004) Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal (forthcoming)
[23] See H Dean and M Melrose, above n 22
[24] See H Dean and M Melrose, above n 22
[25] P Bentley, 'The V1olent Verb' (1994) August National Outlook 26
[26] Unreported, Dubbo Local Court. Magistrate Dav1d He1lpem, 23 August 1999; the judgment may be found at (1999) 24(5) Alternative Law journal 238 See also K P1ne and S Cornack. above n 15, 142
[27] See for example K Pine and S Cornack. above n 15, 142; Commissioner Wootten in E Johnston, above n 14; D Weisbrot, 'Sex, Words and Magistrates' (1991) 16(6) Legal Service Bulletin 297
[28] K Pine and S Cornack. above n 15.
[29] K Pine and S Cornack.above n 15; D Weisbrot, above n 27
[30] Intoxicated Persons Act 1979 (NSW), Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas) ss 4A, 4B, Intoxicated Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1994 (ACT)
[31] Victorian Parliament Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee, Inquiry into Publ1c Drunkenness (2000), Andrew Cornish, 'Public Drunkenness in New South Wales: From Criminality to Welfare' (1985) 18(2) Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 73
[32] DPP v Carr [2002] NSWSC 194, Police v Shannon Thomas Dunn above n 26; K P1ne and S Cornack. above n 15, E Johnston, above n 14 per Commissioner Wootton, D Weisbrot, above n 27, J Stratton, 'Offensive Behaviour' (1991) 16(3) Legal Service Bulletin 132; P Bentley, above n 25
[33] J Waldron, 'Homelessness and Community' (2000) 50 University of Toronto Law Journal 371.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2004/18.html