My notes are attached to use and on the notes the readings are attached please use 2 or 3 readings i Introduction LCR1CLC Criminal Law for Criminal Justice Professionals Mid-Semester Assessment Due Date: 10pm Thursday 26 August 2021 Word Limit: 1800 words (+/- 10%) Please read the following scenario. Instructions for the task are provided after the scenario. This assessment is not a research essay: it is an analytical task that requires only the provided resources in LCR1CLC to address this question. You should not undertake further research into legislation and case law beyond the provided materials. Please emphasise the written materials in the subject rather than the lectures. Where readings address issues, the reading is the preferred source rather than the lecture. We are specifically looking for the depth of your conceptual understanding rather than breadth of knowledge. The described situation is fictional and any resemblance to the real world is, of course, entirely accidental. Scenario Starting in March 2020, a group of climate change and animal welfare activists called the Burnt Abattoir Collective (BAC) have conducted a regular protest outside the Queen Victoria Market in central Melbourne. The BAC’s main form of protest is highly theatrical and is designed to generate feelings of disgust and shame in people attending the market. Their aim is to change public attitudes and behaviour to support vigorous climate change action and convert more people to veganism. The BAC’s manifesto describes their philosophy and objectives in the following way: “Our planet is turning to dust. Our soil is dying. We are living through an emergency of unprecedented magnitude: life itself is on the line. The corrupt and the comfortable are to blame: there’s no escaping the visceral horror and brutality that connects the consumer to the executioner. As this culture lets all life end, let there be no respite from the shame and guilt that plagues the living who feed on the flesh of the dead. Our target is the conscience! Our weapon is feeling! We must disgust! We must petrify! We must x those subscribers to this cult of death. Without shame, without remorse and without change, this practice—raising animals in misery for consumption—will only risk the next plague, increase global warming, and stain our conscience as misery builds on misery. Action must be taken. There is no time left before all is ash and bone.” The BAC’s standard protest action includes a performance where members cover their almost naked bodies in blood, entrails and decaying flesh, and then re-enacting the slaughter and processing of animals. Unsurprisingly, their protest deliberately smells like rotting meat. They erect a stage and use a loud PA system that plays the sounds of dying animals recorded surreptitiously at a slaughterhouse. Members of the Collective chant at no one in particular: “murderer, genocidaire, rapist, molester, scum”. In the early mornings, as well as whenever a night market is held in winter, the BAC use a projector to display videos of animals being killed in meat production on the market walls. The BAC has never damaged the property of the market, nor have they assaulted or swore at anyone entering or exiting the premises. Frustrated, some shoppers and stall holders have complained to the government that the current criminal law is insufficient to give police the power to stop this kind of protest and charge those involved. The Attorney General has received a number of letters from affected persons and businesses. They have decided that the State of Victoria must change the law to prevent this from happening. The Attorney General then proposes legislation that they hope will prevent the protestors from continuing their activities. The Attorney General says, in their second-reading speech to the Victorian Parliament that: “Shoppers and farmers, store holders and children all have had enough with this disgusting example of protest action. Sure! Have your say. Whinge if you want to. But this fine State won’t be guilt tripped by a bunch of putrid dole bludgers who carry on like a two-bob watch with absolute disregard for small business let alone the community’s standard of hygiene. Enough! This law proposes to take reasonable action to clamp down on this filth and let Victorians go about their business without harassment or nuisance from the professional rabble. Join me in saying enough is enough. I commend this bill to house” This change to the law is contained in draft legislation. The government has circulated the bill for public feedback and consultation before it proceeds to a vote in the House. The proposed law is called the Proper Conduct of Persuasion 2020 bill (Vic). This bill seeks to introduce the following crime into the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic). Improper Conduct of Persuasive Communications a) Anyone who – a. assembles within 50 metres of the property boundary of a market or other place of business; and b. stages an indecent performance; and c. is reckless as to the decency of their performance is guilty of a criminal offence. Penalty: 2.5 years imprisonment b) An indecent performance is a performance that a police officer deems to be contrary to reasonable standards of decency in a public space. c) The distance from the market or place of business is an absolute liability element. d) Sections 322K and s 322R of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) are not available as a defence 1 Instructions You have recently been employed as a criminologist at the Nature Protection Office (NPO), a not-for- profit law firm that specialises in protecting the Australian environment and providing legal support to environmental activists. The NPO has never worked with the BAC. 1 Please note, an earlier version of this document incorrectly referred to sections 332K and 332R of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Please note that you are directed to consider the defences of self-defence and sudden or extraordinary emergency. to charges of this offence. You have been asked to prepare a report that advises the Director of the NPO whether or not they should support this bill. You have been asked to focus specifically on the bill’s compatibility with the general principles of criminal responsibility. Your report should consist of the reasons for your conclusion. Your report should address the following: (a) Describe how these new offences do or do not conform to the general principles of criminal responsibility? This including analysing the mens rea and actus reus of this bill as well as considering the impact of any changes to available defences. (b) Does the bill present any problems from the NPO’s perspective with regards to how these offences are to be prosecuted? (c) Should the bill be supported in its current form, modified, or rejected? If you advocate modifying the bill, what would you change? You have been instructed to focus only on matters of legality and compatibility with the criminal law of Victoria. You should not refer to other offences in the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic). You should rely on and reference only the materials in LCR1CLC weeks 1 to 5 in preparing your report. The memo is to be fully and correctly referenced according to the style guide for LCR1CLC. Tips + Advice This assessment is asking you to write up your reasons for supporting or not supporting a bill: this means that there is no one single, correct, answer to this question. Instead, there are a number of issues you might like to write about in your response. This means you should be thinking about the best way to address the questions above. It is worth dividing this task in to three discrete stages: (1) analysing the legislation; (2) working out what you think your argument will be; and (3) writing up your report. It is only after you have analysed the offences closely that you will be in a position to know what your argument is. This task should take you around 18 hours of attentive work to complete to an appropriate standard. Your answer should have both an introduction and a conclusion. Given the word length, you should think carefully about how you construct your argument across the paragraphs of your memo. You should use headings to structure your writing. Remember, you can always have a Peer Learning Advisor at the Library give you feedback on a draft or use the Studiosity via the LMS platform for online feedback on academic writing. Tutors are not able to give substantive feedback on your work or look at drafts. The following questions might assist you with analysing the bill (although how much emphasis you put on any one of these questions might change as your answer does): a. Does each provision comply with the principles of general criminal responsibility or are there any defects with its drafting? In either case, describe how. b. Does each provision achieve its aim? c. Which of the issues are the most serious and which are more minor? Assessment Criteria Your report will be graded on the following criteria: a) How well the report addresses the question(s); b) How well the relevant legal issues covered in the subject are identified and discussed; c) How clear and sophisticated the analysis is; d) The depth of understanding; e) Whether the report is structured in a logical and well-organised manner; f) Clarity in writing with appropriate spelling, grammar and formatting g) Whether references and citations are correct