About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

7 Melb. J. Int'l L. 407 (2006)
Double Punishment - Preventive Detention Schemes under Australian Legislation and Their Consistency with International Law: The Fardon Communication

handle is hein.journals/meljil7 and id is 411 raw text is: 





COMMENTARY


     DOUBLE PUNISHMENT? PREVENTIVE DETENTION
     SCHEMES UNDER AUSTRALIAN LEGISLATION AND
     THEIR CONSISTENCY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW:
                 THE FARDON COMMUNICATION

                       PATRICK  KEYZER*  AND  SAM  BLAYt

[This commentary critically analyses legislation enacted by the Queensland Parliament that
reincarcerates sex offenders who have already completed their terms of imprisonment. Despite
the fact that the constitutional validity of this new style of 'preventive detention' was upheld by
the High Court of Australia, important questions remain regarding the international legal
validity of the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld). In particular, a recently
commenced  UN  Communication by prisoner Robert Fardon argues that the Queensland Act
inflicts double punishment contrary to art 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. This commentary considers the issues raised by this communication.]

                                   CONTENTS

I    Introduction .............................................................................. 408
II   Preventive Detention Legislation in Australia........................................ 409
       A    The History of the Debate ..................................................... 409
       B    Preventive Detention in Practice ..............................................410
              1    Victorian Case Study: Garry David..................................411
              2    New  South Wales Case Study: Gregory Kable..................... 411
              3    Queensland Example: The DPSOA.................................. 412
III  The DPSOA   in Operation: The Fardon Case........................................... 413
       A    The Offences....................................................................... 413
       B    The Subsequent Proceedings..................................................414
       C    Does the DPSOA  Inflict Double Punishment?9.............................414
              1    The High Court's Response ..........................................414
              2    Is Preventive Detention in a Prison Necessarily Punitive?.......415
IV   Assessment at International Law.......................................................417
       A    The 'No Double Punishment' Rule under International Law .............417
       B    The First Optional Protocol: The Avenue for Redress.................... 418
       C    The Comparative Strengths of Fardon's Complaint ....................... 419
              1    The Precedent of the New Zealand Communication.............. 419
              2    Admissibility of Preventive Detention Complaints ...............420
              3    The Merits ................................................................421
V    Conclusion ...............................................................................423

  * BA  (Hons), LLB (Hons), LLM (Sydney); Barrister of the Supreme Courts of New South
    Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland and Vanuatu; Associate Professor, Faculty of Law,
    University of Technology, Sydney. I would like to thank Aleksandr Azarov, Ksenia Belova,
    Cynthia Dearin, Nathan Jones, Diana Kuitkowski, Joanne Lennan, Kathryn MacDougall and
    Heidi Wolfenden for research assistance. I would also like to acknowledge the funding
    support I have received from the Criminology Research Council for research relating to
    some of the questions considered in this article, and also the support and ongoing efforts of
    Susan  Bothmann  of  the Prisoners' Legal Service (Queensland) on the  Fardon
    Communication and related matters.
  t LLB  (Hons) (Ghana); LLM (ANU); PhD (Tasmania); Professor, Faculty of Law, University
    of Technology, Sydney.


407

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most