Crimes Act 1914 - Determination of an Incident under Division 11A (09/03/2007)

Overview

The Crimes Act 1914, enacted by the Parliament of Australia, is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to address criminal activities within Australia and its territories. A notable inclusion in the Act is Division 11A, which was introduced to streamline and facilitate the identification of deceased persons in tragic incidents, particularly those involving mass fatalities or complex circumstances. This legislative measure was born out of the need for an efficient and unified approach to handling such incidents, following the tragic events of the Bali bombings in 2002. The policy objective behind Division 11A is to ensure that investigations into such incidents are conducted effectively and that the identification of victims is achieved through the use of advanced forensic procedures, integrating resources from the Commonwealth, States, and Territories. This approach was further exemplified in the application of Division 11A to the Garuda Flight GA200 incident in 2007, where the Attorney-General, after consultation with the Australian Federal Police, determined that the provisions of Division 11A were appropriate to assist in the identification of Australian citizens or residents who died in the crash and subsequent explosion.

Scope and Application

This determination, under the Crimes Act 1914, applies specifically to the circumstances surrounding the crash and explosion of Garuda Flight GA200 at Yogyakarta, Indonesia, on 7 March 2007. The application of Division 11A of the Act to this incident is contingent on the Attorney-General's determination that Australian citizens or residents were involved and that it is appropriate to use the Act's provisions for victim identification. The Act facilitates the use of DNA matching procedures to aid in the identification of deceased persons, drawing on Commonwealth, State, and Territory forensic resources, a framework established following the Bali bombings in 2002. This legislative measure is intended to streamline the identification process for victims of international incidents involving Australians. The determination is subject to disallowance under section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, reflecting its legislative nature and the oversight provided by disallowable instruments.

Key Provisions

The main operative sections of this determination (subsection 23YUF(3) of the Crimes Act 1914) pertain to the application of Division 11A of the Crimes Act 1914 to the crash and subsequent explosion of Garuda Flight GA200. This application is intended to facilitate the use of DNA matching procedures to assist with the identification of deceased persons, specifically targeting the investigation into the incident that occurred at Yogjakarta on 7 March 2007. The Attorney-General was satisfied that the application of this Division was appropriate given that one or more Australian citizens or residents were involved in the incident. Under this determination, the Act imposes specific obligations on relevant authorities and parties involved in the investigation and identification process. These obligations include the use of forensic resources from the Commonwealth, States, and Territories in a streamlined manner to expedite the identification of victims. This collaborative approach ensures that all available forensic capabilities are harnessed efficiently to address the humanitarian aspect of the incident. The Attorney-General's decision to apply Division 11A was made in consultation with the Australian Federal Police, indicating a coordinated effort to manage the investigation effectively. Breaching the provisions of this determination or failing to comply with the obligations outlined under Division 11A of the Crimes Act 1914 could result in legal consequences. While the specific offences and penalties are not detailed in the explanatory statement, the nature of the Crimes Act 1914 suggests that breaches could potentially lead to both civil and criminal liabilities. Given the serious nature of the incident and the legislative framework, penalties could include fines and imprisonment, depending on the severity and intent behind the breach. The determination also highlights that it is a disallowable instrument, meaning it can be subject to scrutiny and potential disallowance by Parliament, underscoring the significance of its provisions.