Skip to content

bad company

11 June, 2012

Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: […] One does not look at legislation and say, “Gosh; I’m going to commit a burglary along with someone else, but I don’t want to fall under the “in company” circumstance of aggravation under the Criminal Code.” This section prevents association between people. Part of that definition means to be in company with another person. If Hon Giz Watson was the subject of a control order saying that she was not to associate with, say, Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich —

Hon Giz Watson: No problem!

Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: I am glad that the member said that, because what steps would she then take to not be in company with Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich? Presumably, even though Hon Giz Watson may be required to be in the same room as Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich because Hon Giz Watson goes to the same dole office to collect her dole, or to the same delicatessen to buy a drink —

Hon Sue Ellery: Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is a woman of some means. She won’t be going to the dole office.

Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN: There is a life experience that the member might one day experience. But the point I make is that if Hon Giz Watson was told not to be in company with her, there are certain things that Hon Giz Watson would instinctively avoid if she was trying to comply with the terms of the order or her personal preference to not be in company with someone else.

Subject: Criminal Organisations Control Bill 2011 [Legislative Council – Committee]

Date: 3 May 2012

Hansard reference: p. 2274 [online (pdf)]

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: