I write to express my concerns about the evidentiary and procedural provisions set out in the Draft for comment OPC 156 CL/CL 17.8.2023 9:21 AM 1 Prepared by Parliamentary Counsel South Australia Criminal Law Consolidation (Coercive Control) Amendment Bill 2023 and currently on the SA Government’s MY SAY web site.
It seems to me that while the provisions may be well intended we need to be suspicious about how they may be abused as incidents such as the recent and continuing Harry Garside seem to be increasing.
All charges were dropped against him when he was able to produce video of himself withdrawing while she was shouting words such as “They’ll believe me because I’m a girl.” I understand she has now been charged with various offences and is, of course, innocent unless proven guilty.
I suggest that in our haste to “do something” about domestic violence that it is a bad idea to relieve the prosecution of providing the same particularity, or details of the alleged offence to the defence as they would normally be required.
The draft says: ...the information need not...allege the particulars of each behaviour with the degree of particularity that would be [normally] required...
This is not a good idea at all. Not only that. The prosecution does not even need to: identify particular behaviours or the occasions on which, places at which or order in which behaviours occurred; and...
It is a long time since we had trial by ambush in criminal matters but now it seem likely, if this draft Bill becomes legislation, that the prosecution will not need to nail down the facts so that the defendant, innocent unless proven guilty, will know exactly what he has to defend before the trial starts.
We are told that the draft has been prepared according to the input and experiences of “victims” and the domestic violence industry, and so it seems.
There are a litany of provisions such as:
...a person may indirectly restrict another person's freedom of action by causing a child of the other person to feel disappointed or upset with a view to influence the other person to take a certain action;...
Causing a child to feel disappointed! How on earth will this provision be fairly interpreted?
Specially when ...it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to have a controlling impact on, or cause serious apprehension or fear in, the other person...
The balance in this draft Bill is awry from the start: a person's behaviour will be taken to have a controlling impact on another person if a reasonable person would consider that the behaviour, either directly or indirectly, restricts 1 or more of the following: (a) the other person's freedom of movement; (b) the other person's freedom of action; (c) the other person's ability to engage in social, political, religious, cultural or economic activities;
Sounds like marriage to me. Happy Wife. Happy life.