Criminal Convictions On The Gbr Overturned

[pjbink]

Queensland Senator Ron Boswell confirmed today that those people convicted of fishing in a green zone prior to December 2006 and carrying a criminal conviction will have their convictions regarded as ‘spent’.

The result came after the House of Representatives supported an amendment to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 sponsored by Senator Boswell and Senator Ian MacDonald.

“The weight of a criminal conviction has been lifted from the more than 300 people who were convicted for fishing in a green zone before the penalties changed to include only a heavy fine for the same offence,” Senator Boswell said.

“This decision means that the Coalition has fulfilled the promise we made to these unfairly burdened convicted fishermen,” Senator Boswell said.

“I have been working for more than a year to right the wrongs that bad legislation had inflicted on these people.”

“The decision will have the effect of altering convictions so they will be regarded as ‘spent convictions.’ This decision will effectively overturn the convictions and will apply to anyone who has a criminal conviction where the fine was $5000 or less.”

“The issue arose from a 2006 decision when the former Coalition Government acted to implement a fairer infringement notice system where those caught in green zones were still to be issued a fine, but would not necessarily receive the ongoing burden of a criminal record against their name.”

“However, this left the 324 fishers in a kind of ‘limbo’ where they had already been charged under the old system, and consequently had a criminal record documented.”

“Before the election I received advice from Prime Minister Howard’s office that they had identified a possible legislative solution to the problem. I had brought the convicted fishers to the brink of a pardon, but unfortunately the election got in the way of justice officials taking action.”

“A recent Senate Inquiry heard evidence of how people have had their lives adversely affected by having a criminal conviction hanging over their head.”

“Those convicted included grandfathers who went fishing with their grandchildren and were given a criminal record because they didn’t have GPS or proper charts.”

“The final decision by the House of Representatives to support our amendments brings an end to this sorry saga.”

ENDS

Edited November 17, 2008 by billfisher

[pelican]

Even though overturned it still would exist as a criminal conviction on your police record. Explain that to future employers. hmmmmm

Edited November 18, 2008 by pelican

[glennmreid]

Even though overturned it still would exist as a criminal conviction on your police record. Explain that to future employers. hmmmmm

A spent criminal conviction means that it does not need to be disclosed to future employers. Also, it will not be revealed in a criminal record check. You are basically given a clean slate. Only exception to this would be working for the police, working with children etc A conviction to be spent will also depend on factors like type of crime, length of any prison sentence involved etc

check out criminal conviction

[pelican]

A lot of employers and insurance companies and also visa applications ask now whether you have been charged within the last XX years. This is there way of getting around the issue but not sure if it is legal. Heard of it a couple of time in regrds to disclosure for US visas being rejected ( comonwealth provides all detail to US security agencies) as as spent law it is not the same in every State. I don't know exactly what the current law is but the conviction should be expunged not just spent as if they are convicted of any offence n the next XX years ( 10 in NSW, was 5 or 10 in QLD) it reappears back on the public record.

Law was going to be changed and standardised across australia ( ha ha likely story ) but not sure if it ever was. QLD law is different to NSW. I am not up to date so it may have happened in the last 10 years. I came across it when moving money for clients under the cash reporting rules when a client wasn't allowed to transfer money overseas due to a very old conviction.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PLPR/1994/80.html

EDIT-

Should have added the weird one about the cash reporting act s that the conviction was his brothers ( an admin error) so even when the records were amended it still showed up as records didn't want to go through the expunge process which required the Queens corgie to do 2 backflips and put a paw print on something in mid air. Only happens if you are a Prince or QC apparantly and he spent years trying to have it permanently fixed as a matter of prncipal

Here is the current Privacy commisioner link for all states but I'm not going to bother reading that all our states are still different.

http://www.privacy.gov.au/privacy_rights/laws/

Edited November 18, 2008 by pelican

[glennmreid]

very interesting read.