More knee-jerk lawmaking from Power

Simon Power - FIGJAMSimon “FIGJAM” Power never has an original idea. Two fools used the defense of provocation unsuccessfuly and the law is gone in a heart-beat under urgency.

Now FIGJAM is wanting the defense of “Claim of Right” to go too, because someone used it successfully to get off serious vandalism charges. That doesn’t mean the law is broken, it means the system is. That they were able to successfully use this defense tells us more about the adequacy of the prosecutor and the judge than it does about the law.

Just because someone successfully uses a defense doesn’t mean that we should now amend the law to prevent the defense being successfully used again. That, my friends, is starting to sound like a dictatorship, changing laws to suit the end game. If seems that if FIGJAM doesn’t agree with a judicial outcome his solution is to change the law pronto. That is knee-jerk law making and completely unnecessary.

Each case rests upon its own merits and so it is farcical to suggest the law needs to be repealed because one group successfully used the defense.

FIGJAM also raises an interesting point:

It also appears our law on this is out of step with comparable overseas jurisdictions, including England and Canada, and several Australian states.

Yes and so do our Name Suppression laws, but I don’t see FIGJAM rushing to change those to bring them in line with other jurisdictions. If he did then there wouldn’t be any name suppression unless under extremely rare situations.

It would be nice if our Justice Minister focused on how Justice is administered rather than tinkering with obscure laws very few people use.