The implementation of the Vicious Lawless Associate Disestablishment (VLAD) Act in 2013 saw the execution of strong mandatory sentences for those identified as vicious lawless associates who have participated in declared offences . While these laws are aimed at increasing public protection and safety through the disestablishment of criminal gangs, it is argued that VLAD act violates the rights of certain associations throughout Queensland whilst also disregarding principles of the Rule of Law .
Definition of a Vicious Lawless Associate
Under Section 5 (1) of the VLAD Act, a person needs to satisfy three elements in order to be considered a vicious lawless associate. These include if the person (a) commits a declared offence and; (b) at the …show more content…
However, traditional common law approaches still have relevance today, as the interpretation acts do not cover everything in relation to statutory interpretation. The two most relevant traditional common law approaches that are used in statutory interpretation are the literal approach and the golden rule …show more content…
The main objectives of the VLAD Act were to disestablish associations that encourage persons to commit serious offences; to increase public safety and security through the disestablishment of the associations; and to deny the persons who commit serious offences the assistance and support gained from the association. Although the main intent for the VLAD act was to target criminal organisations, in particular bikie gangs, they often impose punishment on individuals for the actions of a group of which they are a member, even if they are not involved in criminal activity. It has been contended that the VLAD act disregards the well-established principles of the Rule of Law in relation to the proportionality in sentencing. Section 7 of the VLAD act states that the offender will receive a sentence for the offence in which they committed under the law, as well as an additional mandatory sentence of 15 years imprisonment, to be served solely in a correctional facility. However, the mandatory sentence does not take into consideration the seriousness of the offence, where it is only imposed for being a member of a criminal association. This clearly goes against the principle of the rule of law in that the mandatory sentences lead to an injustice within the criminal justice system, where the judge is not
Definition of a Vicious Lawless Associate
Under Section 5 (1) of the VLAD Act, a person needs to satisfy three elements in order to be considered a vicious lawless associate. These include if the person (a) commits a declared offence and; (b) at the …show more content…
However, traditional common law approaches still have relevance today, as the interpretation acts do not cover everything in relation to statutory interpretation. The two most relevant traditional common law approaches that are used in statutory interpretation are the literal approach and the golden rule …show more content…
The main objectives of the VLAD Act were to disestablish associations that encourage persons to commit serious offences; to increase public safety and security through the disestablishment of the associations; and to deny the persons who commit serious offences the assistance and support gained from the association. Although the main intent for the VLAD act was to target criminal organisations, in particular bikie gangs, they often impose punishment on individuals for the actions of a group of which they are a member, even if they are not involved in criminal activity. It has been contended that the VLAD act disregards the well-established principles of the Rule of Law in relation to the proportionality in sentencing. Section 7 of the VLAD act states that the offender will receive a sentence for the offence in which they committed under the law, as well as an additional mandatory sentence of 15 years imprisonment, to be served solely in a correctional facility. However, the mandatory sentence does not take into consideration the seriousness of the offence, where it is only imposed for being a member of a criminal association. This clearly goes against the principle of the rule of law in that the mandatory sentences lead to an injustice within the criminal justice system, where the judge is not