64 - Victoria sending people to Jail, NO CRIME NEEDED ???

<p>Julian Burnside wrote this week: &nbsp;</p> <p>Proposed sections 250 and 253 have the effect of permitting police to exercise public health powers and emergency powers without the direction of an authorised officer. Police are not public health officials and do not have the expertise to determine whether action is necessary to eliminate or reduce a serious risk to public health. Further, we have seen that a lot of fines for breaching the directions have been issued erroneously and at times, it seems, capriciously. With the increased arsenal of powers, Liberty Victoria is concerned that we may see an increase in the severity of consequences (beyond substantial fines) flowing from similarly erroneous or capricious decisions – including arrests and restricting a person’s movement. &nbsp;</p> <p>Even more worryingly, proposed s 252 introduces a preventative detention regime which appears to have little protections or oversight, and provides far too much discretion to people who may lack the necessary expertise to determine risk, including police officers. The Bill does not specify what conduct may give rise to a “reasonable belief” that a person “is likely to refuse or fail to comply with” a direction. Again, police officers are not trained public health officials and will not have the expertise to determine the likelihood of a person’s conduct presenting a public health risk. &nbsp;&nbsp;Further, the period of detention is not specified in the Bill and there is no oversight regulation built into this power. It is to be determined based on what the designated authorised person, including a police officer, considers and if they reasonably believe the person remains a ‘high risk person’." &nbsp;</p> <p>I discuss this in tonights episode. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>Note some may find this content confronting. I know I do. &nbsp;</p> <p>This episode contains material used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media