25 minutes and 46 seconds missing in a nasty night to remember

Ilya Gridneff | SMH | March 21, 2012

The curtain still hasn't come down on 29-year-old John Tanner's night out at Sydney Opera House eight months ago ... and it all hinges on a "missing" 25 minutes and 46 seconds.

His enjoyment of the Vivid Live festival took an ugly turn when he says he was sick in a public area after having a glass of wine and wedges last June.



John Tanner and David Rook outside the Rose Bay police station. Photo: Simon Alekna

He says he wasn't intoxicated but unwell, yet three security guards bundled him out and attacked him at 11pm.

His 41-year-old partner David Rook collected him and they drove to Rose Bay police station, 500 metres from their home, to report the alleged assault.

"At first police started to write down our details but then they started giving each other knowing glances and put their pads away," said Mr Rook, who believes that, because he has a stammer and is gay, he was not taken seriously.

When it comes to crime, harsher punishment doesn't pay

Anna Patty | SMH | March 14, 2012

LENGTHENING prison terms will do nothing to reduce crime in NSW, one of the most comprehensive reports on the criminal justice system conducted in Australia shows.

The study by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research found that increasing the risk of arrest and imprisonment were much more effective.

Another major reason for falls in crime in the past decade was an improved economy and employment levels, which provided strong disincentives to crime. A 10 per cent increase in household income was estimated to produce an 18.9 per cent reduction in property crime and a 14.6 per cent reduction in violent crime.

The bureau's director, Don Weatherburn, said the study suggested governments should focus more on strategies to increase the risk of arrest and less on increasing the severity of punishments.

The study looked at whether Australian taxpayers were getting value for the $11.5 billion they spend each year on law and order.

It reviewed changes in the risk of arrest, the likelihood of prison and the average prison term on trends in property and violent crime across all 153 local government areas in NSW between 1996 and 2008.

''Increasing the risk of arrest and the likelihood of going to prison produces modest reductions in property and violent crime,'' Dr Weatherburn said. ''But increasing the length of prison sentences exerts no effect at all.''

Sniffer dogs get it wrong four out of five times

Anna Patty | SMH | December 12, 2011



Police say ''accurate'' … a sniffer dog at a festival. Photo: Dean Sewell

A RECORD 80 per cent of sniffer dog searches for drugs resulted in ''false positives'' this year, figures show.

The figures obtained from the state government in response to parliamentary questions on notice show 14,102 searches were conducted after a dog sat next to a person, indicating they might be carrying drugs. But, in 11,248 cases, no drugs were found.

Only 2854 searches - 20 per cent - in the first nine months of this year, resulted in drugs being found, the figures show.

Last year, of the 15,779 searches conducted after police-dog identification, no drugs were found in 11,694 cases. Drugs were found in 4085 cases, resulting in a ''false positive'' rate of 74 per cent, said the Greens MP David Shoebridge, who obtained the figures.

Matthew Pels, 22, of Erskineville, a hospitality student, said he was one of the thousands searched in a public place and found not to be carrying drugs.

Mr Pels said a police dog sat next to him at Redfern station before he underwent a search about six months ago. When his pockets were emptied, a packet of dog treats was found.

''The whole thing was unnecessary,'' he said. ''I think it was a violation of my privacy.''

Mr Shoebridge said the figures showed thousands of innocent people were being ''ritually humiliated'' publicly.

''No test which has an 80 per cent error rate could be considered a reasonable basis on which to conduct an intrusive public search of a citizen going about their daily business,'' Mr Shoebridge said.

''Now that we know the error rate is so high, the program needs to be halted. Because of where they operate, police sniffer dogs tend to target young people and Aborigines. If this was happening in the car parks of merchant banks, there would be outrage.''

The secretary for the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Stephen Blanks, argued the use of sniffer dogs infringed people's freedoms and could only be justified if it resulted in a high rate of detections.

But police strongly defend the use of the dogs, saying they are reliable and can detect remaining traces of drugs on people, even after they have been disposed of.

Inspector Chris Condon of the NSW Police dog unit said the detection dogs were extremely accurate, adding that more than ''80 per cent of indications by the dogs result in either drugs being located or the person admitting recent contact with illegal drugs.

''Any suggestion otherwise is incorrect,'' Inspector Condon said. ''Drug-detection dogs are an important facet of the overall harm-minimisation strategy of the NSW Police Force. Drug-detection dogs are an extremely effective deterrent to persons transporting drugs for the purpose of supply.''

The NSW Police Association supports the dogs' use. Its president, Scott Weber, has said they have been valuable deterrents at events such as The Big Day Out.

A spokesman for the NSW Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, said the government fully supported the use of dogs because police had found them effective.

Don Weatherburn, the director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, has said the high number of searches relative to detections is not an indication of failure. ''The question is how many people would carry drugs if not for sniffer dogs,'' Dr Weatherburn said.

AG at Estimates: Bail

General Purpose Standing Committee No 4 | Attorney General and Justice | 26 October 2011

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Attorney, I think the final question asked by Mr David Shoebridge related to the Bail Act. Are you able to indicate to the Committee what the current trends are with regard to bail and whether the Government is considering any reform of the bail laws in New South Wales? 

Mr GREG SMITH: It is a very topical issue; there was an excellent piece in the Sydney Morning Herald today by Geesche Jacobsen in which she referred in some detail to a submission by the Chief Magistrate to the bail review, setting out the magistrate's perspective on problems. A Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research report on trends in bail and sentencing outcomes in New South Wales criminal courts between 1993 and 2007 revealed that in local courts the proportion of defendants refused bail doubled during those years, from 3.6 per cent to 7.6 per cent. In the District and Supreme courts the proportion of defendants refused bail during that period also doubled, from 23.8 per cent to 47.6 per cent. 

A Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research report on the use of unconditional bail before trial in New South Wales between the years 1999 and 2008 found that over the past decade there has been a marked reduction in the number and percentage of cases where bail is dispensed with, from 60.3 per cent in 1999 to 44.9 per cent in 2008; and that, while there has been some increase in the percentage, 3 per cent, and number of defendants refused bail, the main change has been a rise in the number of defendants placed on bail rather than released unconditionally. 

Another trend has been the increase in the number of juveniles being held in custody pending a court 

outcome—that is, being held on remand. Between 2007 and 2008 the juvenile remand population in New South Wales grew by 32 per cent, from an average of 181 per day to 239 per day. In 2009 there was a downward trend in the juvenile remand population, and this continued to the end of 2010. Remand numbers spiked in March 2011, to 261, and in July of 2011, to 241. On Saturday night 23 October 2011 there were 197 young people held on remand. The average number of juvenile remandees per day in 2010-11 was 193, and this is still higher than the daily number in 2007. 

The juvenile remand rate continues to be characterised by significant fluctuations and remains at an unacceptably high level. Fifty to 60 per cent of young people in detention centres are held on remand; 90 per cent of admissions to detention centres are remand admissions; and approximately 82 per cent of young people remanded in custody do not receive custodial sentences. Pressure is being placed on the remand population by an increase in both the number of juveniles placed on remand and the average length of stay on remand. 

Increases in the remand population are also occurring among adults. As at 16 October 2011, 2,671 people were in full-time custody on remand, awaiting trial or sentence. This is an increase of 86 per cent over 10 years since 30 June 2010, when only 1,433 people were in full-time custody on remand. 

We have commenced the Bail Act review, and on 8 June I asked the Law Reform Commission to undertaken a review of bail law in New South Wales. I am concerned that the Bail Act may have moved away from the spirit and intent of the original legislation—as was reflected in the comments made by the Chief Magistrate, Graeme Henson, reported in the newspaper today. This was to ensure attendance at a hearing or trial, to stop defendants from committing further offences and to prevent interference with witnesses. In announcing the review I was also conscious of the number of people on remand, especially juveniles. I also have concerns about the complexity of bail law in New South Wales and I know these concerns are shared by members of the legal profession and the bench. Bail laws should be as clear and straightforward as possible. 

The terms of reference for the review incorporate issues such as: the objects of the Bail Act; the factors to be considered and presumptions to be applied in bail determinations; the consequences of breaching bail; the desirability of maintaining section 22A of the Bail Act; and the application of bail laws to young people and Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders. The Law Reform Commission can also consider the bail laws of other jurisdictions and any additional bail-related matter. A retired Supreme Court judge, the Honourable Hal Sperling, QC, is leading the New South Wales Law Reform Commission project, with the assistance of its chair, former Justice James Wood, and is due to report next month. 

I would like to make a few comments on the juvenile remand population. I am advised that the heads of justice agencies were asked to look into the issue of increases in the number of juveniles being held in remand, and to identify the causes of the increase. As part of this process, advice was sought from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, which identified two major correlating factors: increased policing of bail conditions, which I think is due to the old State Plan, which we have ditched; and changes made to the Bail Act 1978 in 2007 to prevent the making of repeat bail applications in the same court. I might continue with more comments on that matter later, if that is the end of this period.

AG at Estimates: Graffiti

General Purpose Standing Committee No 4 | Attorney General and Justice | 26 October 2011

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I turn to the graffiti laws that the Government has been attempting to get
through Parliament. Was there any consultation with your department or with you about the proposed terms of those graffiti laws?

Mr GREG SMITH: I think I took advice. They took part in a Cabinet minute process. I am not sure that we discussed it in any great detail. There has been discussion about the setting up of the graffiti hotline. There has been discussion about the retention of Graffiti Action Day and discussion about assisting local councils that previously had not been assisted. When we were in the drafting stages there was some discussion about the implementation of the P-plate provisions and that sort of thing. That is all I recall. There was no brawl, no argument.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Do you accept that the pattern of laws, putting more juveniles before the courts, is contrary to your oft-repeated statements about removing juveniles from the criminal court system and taking a different and fresh approach to juvenile justice in New South Wales? It is directly contrary.

Mr GREG SMITH: I do not accept it is directly contrary. I think the graffiti situation is in plague proportions. It is a very serious area of potential criminality. It is a bad crime in itself and it leads to worse crimes—that is my belief. By putting them before the court, in a sense, we are helping to save them from a life of crime.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It is directly contrary to your work development order

AG at Estimates: Mental Health in custody

General Purpose Standing Committee No 4 | Attorney General and Justice | 26 October 2011

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Attorney, in the 2011-12 budget do you know the amount allocated to mental health care services for people in New South Wales correctional centres?

Mr GREG SMITH: No, I do not.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Does either Mr Glanville or Mr Woodham know the amount allocated?

Mr WOODHAM: I cannot tell you the exact dollar figure, but I can relate to the programs that we have, which are very expensive and very intense.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Could you give the dollar figure on notice?

Mr WOODHAM: Yes, I can give you that.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Could you include whether any recurrent funding has been allocated for that purpose?

Mr WOODHAM: It is there every year, because large sections of our remand jails are involved with mental health.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Mr Hubby, could I ask you to provide the same figures and details in relation to young people in Juvenile Justice centres?

Mr HUBBY: I will. I would note though that health services in Juvenile Justice centres are generally provided by NSW Health. So some costs are incurred directly by our agency, but some are incurred by NSW Health.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Could you give the NSW Health figures to the extent they are available to you?

Mr HUBBY: I will take that on notice.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Mr Woodham, could you give the same figures for the amount allocated for mental health care services for people in privatised correctional centres in New South Wales, and include the recurrent figures?

Mr WOODHAM: Yes.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: So that is a separate figure for the privatised centres.

Mr WOODHAM: What the whole facility costs?

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: No. The amount allocated to mental health services.

Mr WOODHAM: Our main programs are not there.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Which is why I am asking can you give the amount allocated in those privatised centres, including by centre, so Parklea and Junee.

Mr WOODHAM: Yes.

A way to get out of three jails

Anna Patty | SMH | 7 September 2011

A RECORD drop in the prison population has allowed the government to close Parramatta, Berrima and Kirkconnell prisons, cutting 350 jobs by the end of the year.

The Corrective Services Commissioner, Ron Woodham, said there were 11,224 prison beds at the end of last month, but just 9847 inmates, down from 10,400 in June last year.

Mr Woodham said 600 to 650 beds would be cut as part of savings, which would need to be found across the organisation. He said voluntary redundancy packages, redeployment and retraining had been offered to staff and ''every attempt is being made to backfill positions''.

The Attorney-General, Greg Smith, said a disused section of Parklea Correctional Centre would be reopened to provide 80 beds for relocated inmates. He said the government was also investing $46 million in programs to reduce reoffending and $78 million to build new courts.

The shadow attorney-general, Paul Lynch, said the job cuts would have an adverse affect on local communities. He said there had been no dramatic changes in sentencing patterns which would justify reducing prison capacity.

''The closures are likely to make the corrective services system harder to manage,'' he said.

Greens MP David Shoebridge said the prison population in NSW was 11,000 according to a report from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of NSW that was released last month.

''While the government has stated that it will close three prisons, it has also indicated that it will move to privatise the remaining prison facilities in NSW,'' he said. ''When this government says it is examining 'the potential for greater contestability' in the delivery of corrective services, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind what he meant. This means privatisation.''

O’Farrell’s ineffective graffiti legislation

David Shoebridge MLC | 25 August 2011

Legislation passing through the NSW Parliament that sends more children to court for graffiti will do nothing to reduce graffiti and is a step backwards, according to the Greens NSW and the submission of the Law Society of NSW.

This legislation will push more children into our courts system and is not supported by any evidence that it will reduce graffiti vandalism. The Greens NSW continue to advocate non-punitive community-based solutions, such as those instituted in the Balmain electorate by Leichhardt Council.

The legislation

The Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 amends the Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987 and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to compel courts to impose community service orders for graffiti offences that require young people to remove graffiti (unless it is not reasonably practicable).

It also changes the Graffiti Control Act 2008 to allow courts to make orders concerning drivers’ licenses of those found guilty of committing graffiti offences of owning graffiti implements. These include increasing probationary periods by 6 months and limiting the number of demerits that can be accrued.

However the fundamental change in the Bill is that it compels young people to attend court. It does this by removing power from the police to deal with young offenders by way of an on the spot fine or youth justice conference instead of court proceedings.

Once passed police will have just two options, send the child to court or let them go.

Juvenile detention centre laws challenged

Geoff Chambers | The Daily Telegraph | August 18, 2011 

PROPOSED bail law changes which would keep kids out of packed juvenile detention centres are being challenged by the state's top prosecutor.

In a submission to the Law Reform Commission, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions disputed the need to repeal a section of the Bail Act, blamed for keeping too many youths behind bars.

Of the 17 submissions lodged with the commission as part of the Bail Act review, the ODPP was the highest-profile agency to resist a major overhaul.

Section 22A effectively limits people to one bail application. "No (it should not be repealed). Sensibly (section 22A) provides a court has power to decline to hear an application where it has heard and considered a previous application in the same case by the same accused unless there are new grounds," the submission said.

"The provision does not specify what 'grounds' means - leaving the accused with widest possible options should a change of circumstances occur." The DPP does not back a separate Bail Act provision for juveniles but has previously supported Bail Hostel services.

In its submission, Corrective Services argued for the bail changes on the basis it was struggling to manage an "increasing [adult] inmate population". "The diverse and difficult to manage mix of offenders is complicated by an increase in the number of inmates who are on remand," the department said.

The number of adult prisoners on remand has jumped 254 per cent since 1994 - coupled with a 55 per cent spike in the number of full-time inmates. The average cost of remanding inmates at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre is $163.50 a day - higher than the daily cost for prisoners in mainstream jail. As at June, there were 405 juvenile offenders on remand.

"Corrective Services supports a number of previous submissions made to the 2010 consultation paper that children and young people should be considered separately to adults when bail is granted or refused," the department said.

Greens MP David Shoebridge said DPP Lloyd Babb had gone "out on a limb" by blocking changes to the Act. "In the few short years since 22A was put on the statute books the numbers on remand have ballooned, costing millions without a shred of evidence it has reduced crime," Mr Shoebridge said.

Mr Babb's position appears to be a rebuff to Attorney-General Greg Smith, who has campaigned for changes to the Bail Act to ease the stress on the juvenile justice system.

Retired supreme court judge Hal Sperling, who is leading the review, will report back by November.

The shame of 400 kids in prison in NSW

Kate Sikora | The Daily Telegraph | 6 July 2011

JUVENILE jails are being filled to record levels, with up to 400 children in custody in NSW on any given day.

And the number of young prisoners will only rise in the next three years, the state government said.

Figures released by the government this week reveal the number of juveniles imprisoned in detention centres will increase until 2013, with assault the leading crime leading to imprisonment.

Numerous strategies are being considered to bring down the number but a briefing supplied by Attorney-General Greg Smith's office acknowledges they will have little effect in the short term.

Projections supplied to the Greens show that for the next three years the number of children placed in detention or juvenile centres will increase on an average day from 395 to 411.

Mr Smith has promised to overhaul the juvenile justice system, saying he is unhappy with the number of children currently in custody.

Greens Upper House MP David Shoebridge said the record high levels of child detention would not change under the Coalition.

"The number of juveniles being locked up in NSW shows no sign of decreasing," he said.

"Figures obtained by the Greens shows the number of young people in custody reached a record high in 2010, with well over 400 juveniles imprisoned in NSW on any given day. This represents a 60 per cent increase in the number of children and young people in custody in NSW since 2004."

About 75 per cent of young women in detention are charged with a violent offence such as assault. Young men served the longest time in detention, with up to three months the average stay, followed by six months.

The government has appointed retired Supreme Court judge Hal Sperling, QC, to conduct a review of the Bail Act and report back in November. Mr Smith said the review should identify flaws in the system, including young people who are spending time in custody because they don't have a home.

"The best way to save juveniles from a life of crime is to keep them out of jail," Mr Smith said.

"There needs to be properly supervised alternative punishments and diversionary programs such as the drug court.

"This will help us tackle the underlying causes (of youth crime).

"The latest young people-in-custody health survey shows us that young offenders have high levels of mental illness, intellectual disability, drug and alcohol abuse and poor physical health."

Move On Directions Bill: 2nd reading speeches cont. and 3rd reading

Hansard | NSW Legislative Council | 25 May 2011 

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [11.25 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of The Greens against this retrograde piece of legislation introduced by the new Coalition Government. The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Move On Directions) Bill 2011 will amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 in relation to move-on directions to intoxicated persons in public places. The bill is of modest compass—with only one effective clause—but the bill will change the move-on powers for police in respect of intoxicated persons. As members know, currently these only apply to groups of three or more people who are in a public place and where a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that their behaviour as a result of intoxication is likely to cause injury or otherwise be a risk to public safety. The substantive amendment in this bill is to authorise police to move on a single intoxicated person by themselves rather than in a group.

It is said by the Coalition that this is the first part of its plan to tackle alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour. It is claimed by the Government that it intends to use new ways to address this complex issue. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. This is in fact a throwback to the 1970s, to a failed method of policing and a failed method of dealing with drunkenness in public places. We had some quite insightful contributions by the Hon. Marie Ficarra dealing with the effect of alcohol in our community and dealing quite openly with the impact of drunkenness on our streets and the need for any government to be mindful of ways to deal with public drunkenness and to deal in an effective but also a tolerant and careful manner with the people that the police confront on the streets.

Anyone who goes out in some of our country towns and parts of the central business district of Sydney realises what a tough job the police have dealing with people who are intoxicated on the streets—often groups of people intoxicated on the streets. It is clearly a difficult job for police officers when faced with people who are intoxicated on the streets, but this bill will make the job for the police more difficult. This bill will effectively require the police, because they have the power, to move on individuals who are intoxicated when they run into them on the streets.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio pointed out the history of legislation of this type, which has predominantly been used against marginalised groups in society. It is the single intoxicated homeless person who will be moved on by the police; it is members of the Aboriginal community, who have traditionally been targeted by the police using these kinds of powers in the 1960s and 1970s; it is people who are mentally ill and are often found to be of social difficulty on the streets that will be subject of these move-on powers. That has been the history in the past. This is not a new way forward by the Coalition; this is a throwback to the 1970s.

It is unclear that the Government has looked at the balance of powers found for the police in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act before taking this step, because there is already power under section 197 for a police officer to give a direction to a single person in a public place if that person is obstructing another person or persons, or traffic; if that person is undertaking conduct which constitutes harassment or intimidation; if that person is causing or is likely to cause fear to another person or persons, provided that is reasonable; or if that person is, for example, unlawfully supplying or intending to unlawfully supply or solicit from another person a prohibited drug, or if that person is in a public place for the purpose of obtaining, procuring or purchasing a prohibited drug.

Shoebridge and Dixon on Mandatory Sentencing

"The Wire" | Radio 2SER | 23 May 2011

People who are convicted of killing police officers in New South Wales could be facing a mandatory life sentence if a new government bill is passed. Premier Barry O’Farrell, announced the bill over the weekend, saying that the liberal party has been committed to the policy since 2002. Mandatory sentencing revokes the powers of a judge to interpret facts based on individual circumstances, and some say it can promote a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Criminal law experts are concerned that the measures will lead to injustice and won’t deter criminals from committing offences. Featured in story: Dean of Law University of New South Wales, Professor David Dixon, Greens MP David Shoebridge

Law and Order Auction Commences

Press Release | NSW Greens, David Shoebridge MLC | 9 May 2011

New legislation to be introduced by the O’Farrell Government will give police extraordinary powers 30 years out of date, and, according to NSW Greens MP and Justice spokesperson David Shoebridge will unfairly target disadvantaged members of the community.

“Police already have the powers to deal with people who have had too much to drink and are causing trouble. This legislation is an extreme and unnecessary extra step.

“There is scant evidence other than tabloid and shock-jock scare-mongering papers that police need further powers in this area.

“The ability for the police to force an individual to move from a public space is not something that should be lightly considered in a free society. These laws are more at home in a repressive closed society than in NSW in 2011.

“The Move On Directions Bill will essentially re-introduce the drunk and disorderly provisions which were sensibly removed from the statute books in 1979. We are seeing a real step backwards.

“This legislation will give police wide powers to hassle and intimidate people at their discretion. We might get more arrests, but we’re not going to get a better society.

“At police discretion, people returning from a dinner party, a sporting event or even the theatre will be a police target if they’ve had a couple of drinks, or take offence to the police harassing them.

“Previous laws of a similar nature have been shown to have a disproportionate effect on the most vulnerable members of the community, homeless people, young people and Aboriginal people.

“The Coalition is wasting no time at all in trying to take NSW back to the future,” Mr Shoebridge said.

Greens call for end to religious discrimination

Sydney Star Observer, 16 February 2011:

The NSW Greens have called for the closing of loopholes in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act that allow businesses owned by religious groups to discriminate against students, employees and clients if they hold that something about them conflicts with their beliefs.

Currently religious groups may refuse to hire GLBTs or terminate their employment, while GLBTI children can be forced out of a school with no redress.

The law was passed before homosexuality was decriminalised in NSW but has remained on the books ever since.

Greens lead candidate for the Legislative Assembly, David Shoebridge, said the party supported removing the exemptions and replacing them with a bill of rights that enshrined protection from such discrimination, while the NSW Government and the Coalition parties did not.

“Once a religious organisation receives taxpayer money to fund its operations, whether it’s a school, welfare services or accommodation, then it is absolutely unacceptable that they be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual identity, their religion or being a single mother,” Shoebridge said.

The Greens state election candidate for Marrickville, Fiona Byrne, echoed the call, singling out the NSW Attorney General for criticism.

“The NSW Attorney Genenal John Hatzistergos should be protecting the vulnerable in society rather than defending an antiquated law allowing students to be expelled due to their sexuality,” said Byrne.

A spokesman for the Attorney General told media the law was necessary “to maintain a sometimes delicate balance between protecting individuals from unlawful discrimination while allowing people to practise their own beliefs”.

The Shadow Attorney General, Greg Smith indicated he believed the law needed changing, but that was not the view of his party.

The coronation of King Barry

By Tom Westbrook, Justinian, 23 February 2011:

The law and justice spokespeople for the main parties were put through their paces at a Community Justice forum in Sydney on the weekend ... Opposition parties want to make significant changes to the "penal colony" ... Labor is stuck with its record ... Tom Westbrook reports 

Community Justice Coalition's pre-election forum on criminal justice and the NSW prison system provided a unique opportunity for voters to get within sniffing distance of the main contenders.

Organisers promised a glimpse of what is a rare beast in the era of the new paradigm – the policy speech.

The closest approximation on display was shadow attorney general Greg Smith's enthusiastic vision for "a better society".

As well as the usual raft of inquiries, he proposed to end the "penal" tenor of NSW's approach to criminal justice system. Instead, under the Coalition there would be a renewed focus on education and rehabilitation.

Smith added that what an O'Farrell government might actually deliver was, "for the leader to announce".

NSW attorney general John Hatzistergos and Greens MLC David Shoebridge were also in attendance with their parties' responses to a CJC questionnaire on law and order policies.