Question (2 Viewers)

[ethan16]

Why do some acts give the attorney-general discretion as to whether the matter is prosecuted, eg.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 - SECT 49ZTA

Offence of serious homosexual vilification 49ZTA Offence of serious homosexual vilification

(1) A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group by means which include:

(a) threatening physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons, or​

(b) inciting others to threaten physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons.​

<small>Maximum penalty:

In the case of an individual-10 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.​

In the case of a corporation-100 penalty units.​

</small>​

(2) A person is not to be prosecuted for an offence under this section unless the Attorney General has consented to the prosecution.​

 

[katarinlee]

technically, the A-G shouldnt be allowed this sort of judicil discretion. but it happens. its stupid and pointless, and opens up the way for friends and family members of said A-G to get away with vilification and discrimination.


it goes to show.
the legal system of australia leaves much to be desired