A Collaboration with University of Pittsburgh   

'Shoot-to-kill' provisions of Australia anti-terror proposal questioned

[JURIST] Australian state leaders warned Thursday that "shoot-to-kill" provisions in the country's anti-terrorism proposals [draft law text, PDF] could lead to another wrongful police shooting similar to the one by British officers who incorrectly identified a Brazilian citizen as a suicide bomber [JURIST report] and killed him. The opposition could lead to a revision of the measure, but Australian Prime Minister John Howard [official profile] said the provisions do not actually give the Australian Federal Police [official website] any new power since they already have the right to use necessary deadly force in protecting against deaths or serious injury. Despite civil rights concerns and assertions by law academics who say the laws might breach Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [text], six of Australia's states and two territories have already approved the laws. State leaders in Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria said the shoot-to-kill provisions were not part of their agreement with the prime minister and that they want the section changed, vowing to "bring forward legislation consistent with what was agreed to." Reuters has more.

Previously in JURIST's Paper Chase...

Support JURIST

We rely on our readers to keep JURIST running

 Donate now!

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.