Controversial new laws designed to crack down on protesters are needed in Queensland, the head of a peak legal body says.
Create a free account to read this article
or signup to continue reading
But mandatory sentencing called for by some critics of climate protesters could cause "significant injustice", Queensland Law Society president Bill Potts says.
"There is a complete difference between a spotty 18 year old standing on a street corner yelling 'what do we want and when do you want it now' as opposed to someone who chains themselves to a railway line and potentially could derail a train or make it go off the tracks or hold it up for hours," he told the ABC.
"And in those circumstances the court's discretion as to what to do should not be fettered."
Mr Potts says the law society supports the introduction of the new laws to stop the use of dangerous devices by demonstrators who lock themselves into disruptive positions in busy locations.
Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk plans to fast-track this legislation so it is in place before the end of the month.
Ms Palaszczuk has faced criticism for failing to produce evidence to support claims that protesters deliberately created lock-on devices which could harm police and emergency services attempting to remove them.
But Mr Potts said on Thursday senior police have told him there have been over 20 incidents of booby-trapped devices.
His comments followed the arrest of serial Extinction Rebellion protester Eric Herbert, who was cut from a car he'd locked himself to outside Queensland's government headquarters in the Brisbane CBD.
Herbert is likely to spend the night in the Brisbane watchhouse as his case didn't make it to court on Thursday.
Mr Potts said laws targeting the devices were needed regardless of what was inside them because they still caused widespread disruptions.
Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton and others have been blaming courts for the current wave of protests by climate activists and calling for mandatory sentencing to stop them.
But Mr Potts says that could cause injustice as it does not distinguish between a protester using their democratic right and a serial disrupter.
Australian Associated Press
