Legal and Non-Legal Responses to Australian's Who Commit Crimes Overseas
Australians commit crimes overseas for many
reasons – although not all are crimes in Australia. Legal and non-legal
responses are used to counteract and prevent such crimes from happening and
also to address the crimes that have already been committed. Such responses are
undertaken by people or groups such as Governments, the courts, media and
representatives in interviews.
Khaled Sharroud and Mohamed Elomar are two
recent Australians who have been involved in illegal overseas activity through
participation with ISIS (a group classified as a terrorist organisation in
Australia). By associating with this terrorist organisation – as well as
suspicion of them fighting on ISIS’s behalf – they have committed a crime both
in Australia and as well as in Iraq and Syria. To address this issue of Australians
committing terrorist offences overseas the Government has used representatives
in interviews through the media as part of their non-legal responses.
Attorney General George Brandis was engaged
in an interview with ABC’s news programme 7:30 in which he described and
condemned the actions of Khaled Sharroud, Mohamed Elomar and others who had
travelled overseas to fight for ISIS. In the interview he emphasised that those
who joined ISIS or ISIL, were “the biggest threat to Australian national
security”. He further went on to describe their actions as being “a promotion
of violent crimes, probably war crimes”. Such a non-legal response is used by
the Government through its representatives to try and dissuade others from
going to ISIS and to inform the public of the current situation – due to the
large grasp of the media.
Legal responses have been undertaken by the
Government through the police force. This has been done through the issuing of
warrants for Sharroud and Elomar. In an article by the Sydney Morning Herald
[on the 30th of July] dubbed “AFP issues warrants for Australian
ISIL fighter Khaled Sharroud and Mohamed Elomar”, it is detailed that the
Australian Federal Police (AFP) “have issued arrest warrants for two Sydney men
accused of fighting with terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria”. Due to the fact
that these two men – and others – are still legally Australian citizens,
Australian law is still relevant to them and as such they could have breached
the Foreign Incursion and Recruitment Act (1978) by going overseas and fighting
with a registered terrorist organisation. The AFP has issued such warrants to
prevent them from influencing other members of society if they return to
Australia and for them to face the allegations made by the AFP.
Other legal responses undertaken by the
Government to address this issue has also been to introduce new anti-terrorism
laws such as those proposed by Senator Brandis that will “make it an offence to
encourage terrorism”. These laws have yet to be enacted into parliament but the
Federal Government has plans to make it illegal to incite people to commit
terrorist acts. Such laws would pre-emptively address the issue of those people
wishing to fight overseas before they even leave and to prevent the influence
and proliferation of this encouragement.
Legal responses are also used by the
Australian Government to prevent further crimes from occurring. David Hicks is
an Australian who faced a legal response due to him being accused of committing
offences in the USA. David Hicks was charged by the US for conspiracy,
attempted murder of an underprivileged belligerent and aiding the enemy. Hicks
was taken to Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba were he was held and interrogated for
several years. However before he was taken to Cuba he was interviewed by the
Australian Federal Police. In a Four Corners story called “The Case of David
Hicks” that was aired in October of 2005, the interview between the police and
David Hicks was shown. The AFP questioned him on his activities in Afghanistan
and Pakistan and his reason for involvement with Al-Qaeda. The AFP, as a legal response, was used to
investigate the alleged crimes that he was accused of by the United States
Government and to discover his believes and intentions behind involvement with
a terrorist organisation and Islam. These investigations by the AFP allow the
Government to further find how individuals within Australia can become involved
in illegal activities allowing the Government to find ways of preventing the
community from committing such crimes.
Non-legal responses to this issue of David
Hicks and his accusation of committing crimes in the U.S., were protests and
community outcry. In an AFP (Agence France-Presse) photograph, taken by William
West, there is seen two protesters standing on the side of the road holding two
signs which read “This is a TRAVESTY of justice” and “David Hicks: Political
Prisoner”. Such responses allow for the general public’s opinions on this issue
to be raised and could press for legislative changes or treaty changes to best
fit the interests of the Australian public. This non-legal response was also
shown in the media which allowed for the rest of the community to view the
current opinions that were being presented to influence and engage the public
in Hicks’s matters – due to the influence of the media.
Crimes that are committed overseas are not
always deemed crimes here in Australia. Such crimes do not also have to be
related to terrorism or violence. Mahassen Issa is one such Australian who was accused
in Lebanon of committing adultery offences. Issa was approached by police in
Lebanon, accused that she had broken sharia law – in which women were not
allowed to marry or engage with another man after 12 months. Non-legal
responses were seen in this case through the aid and assistance provided by the
Australian government. The Australian Government has limited powers and
influence in countries that are out of its sovereign borders and as limited aid
was provided.
However, the aid provided was through “consular support” that
involved the research and direction to safe houses and refuges were she could
stay as she was not allowed to leave the country and had limited funds. This
non-legal response although largely ineffective in combatting the case against
her, did provide her with knowledge and resources of the surrounding area and
directions for accommodation – even though she was rejected by a women’s refuge
because of the court case.
Other non-legal responses were also seen in
this case includes a radio show segment called “Australian woman accused of
adultery faces possible prison term in Lebanon” on ABC Radio’s The World Today.
The segment saw an interview of the “executive director Australian Muslim
Women’s Centre for Human Rights” Joumanah El Matrah. She details the possibility
that Issa would not be detained or incarcerated as the majority of the “wider
Muslim community” – although believe that adultery is wrong – would not
interpret her acts as being in breach of adultery. She goes on to say that
there charges may also be invalid because “unless the marriage has also been
registered in Lebanon, then there’s really no case to prosecute against her”.
This interview with a prominent member of the Muslim community allows the
general community to have a sense of what possible convictions could be faced
and the possible breaches in law the Issa may have committed.
A legal response in this case would be the
filing of orders by Issa’s ex-husband to have custody of their children and the
takeover of her property. In an interview with Saba El-Hanania, the principle
of Saba Lawyers and a lawyer acting on behalf of Issa’s ex-husband, Saba notes that
he was given “instructions finally two days ago to file an order for the
federal circuit court for property and children’s matters”. Although this legal
response does not directly solve the issue of alleged crimes that Issa may have
committed, it shows the possible processes and consequences that are involved
when a crime has been alleged against a parent who is divorced. This legal
response is usually used to prevent the children of the parent from being
influenced by what the community deems to be irresponsible behaviour and to
allow the children to have a steady and stable family environment where they
can be supported by at least one guardian.
Crimes that are committed overseas by
Australians can incur many consequences and punishments. A range of legal and
non-legal responses are seen in the cases of Kahled Sharroud, Mohammed Elmoar, Daivd
Hicks and Mahassen Issa. They include the preventative measures undertaken by
the Government to ensure future crimes are not to be committed and through the
court system to bring justice for children. Non-legal measures are seen through
community involvement and the media through which a large impact can be made
due to the large grasp and influence that mainstream media has on the general
public. Both legal and non-legal responses are used to achieve justice, for the
wider Australian community, security of the nation, for the individuals accused
of the crime and their related communities.
If you have a burning question, or would like to featured in some way in the "Ask them from me" segment, email me at: cc3493@gmail.com. If you do not want to be featured in the "Ask them from me" featured post, please let me know in the email :)
Visit Particular Interest for more content like this!
Comments
Post a Comment