Editorial
| Published date | 01 December 1970 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486587000300401 |
| Date | 01 December 1970 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
AUST. &N.Z. JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (Dec.) 1970): 3, 4
EDITORIAL
193
Membership
of
the
Legislative
Council
and
a
Children's
Court
Conviction
IN
the
General
Election
in
Victoria
held
on
30th
May 1970
the
Legislative
Council
seat
of Melbourne West was
contested
by
three
candidates,
one
of
whom was a Mr.
Ronald
William Walsh
representing
the
Australian
Labor
Party.
Mr.
Walsh
won
the
seat
with
an
absolute
majority.
On
the
30th
June
1970
the
Acting
Government
Leader
in
the
Council
challenged
the
right
of Mr.
Walsh
to
sit
in
the
Council because of
an
alleged
conviction in
the
Children's
Court,
when
aged
16 years, of a
crime
classed
as a felony on
the
14th
February
1950.
The
alleged felony was
that
of
assault
and
robbery
and
it
was
further
alleged
that
Mr.
Walsh
was given a six weeks'
gaol
sentence
but
was released on a two
years'
bond
with
the
condition
that
he did
not
drink.
The
basis of
the
challenge
by
the
Acting
Government
Leader
was
the
provision of section 73 of
the
Constitution
Amendment
Act,
1958.
The
matter
was
referred
to
the
Full
Bench
of
the
state
Supreme
Court
(Smith,
Pape,
and
Menhennitt,
JJ.)
sitting
as
the
Court
of
Disputed
Returns.
Before
the
Court Mr. W. O. Harris, Q.C.,
for
Mr. Walsh, submitted-
that
(1)
the
Court
did
not
have
jurisdiction; (2)
that
Children's
Court
convictions
could
not
be
admitted
as evidence; (3)
that
even if
they
were admissible,
the
conviction was
not
aconviction in
the
true
sense as
in
the
County
or
Supreme
Court;
and
(4)
that
even if
the
conviction was proper,
then
he,
Mr. Walsh, was
entitled
to a complete
pardon
under
legislation going
back
to 1828. Not one of
these
submissions won
acceptance
by
the
Court
and
the
judgment
delivered by
Smith
J.
stated:
"It
is
clear
that
on May
30th
(1970),
the
day
of
the
elections, Mr. Walsh was
not
capable of being
elected
or of
sitting
as a
member
of
the
Legislative Council".
The
matter
of
the
legal
interpretation
of section 73 of
the
Constitution
Amendment
Act,
1958, in
relation
to
the
criminal
record of Mr. Walsh is
not
our
immediate
concern.
What
does
concern
us is
that
aconviction of a
16-year-old
youth
in
the
Children's
Court
should
act
as a
bar
to
an
in-
dividual
taking
afull
part
in public life as
an
adult:
in
this
case 20 years
later.
As we
understand
it,
the
Children's
Court
is
not
only physically
distinct
from
the
adult
court
but
has
many
other
distinguishing
features.
These
differences
are
generally
understood
to be necessary
in
the
interests
of
the
children
and
to assist
with
their
rehabilitation.
Indeed,
the
notion
of
the
1.
The
Australian,
15
September
1970.
To continue reading
Request your trial