Australia Custom Laws and United Nations Convention - Assignment Example

International Customs Law Abstract Illicit traffic of drugs and psychotropic substances has for a long time been a threat to the economies and humanity of many communities across the globe. Australia has not been exceptional in this regard and just like many other countries, she has tried tirelessly to curd this practice (Bolt, 2007). This paper focuses on particular interest on how Australian custom laws have in accordance with the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 to fight drug trafficking crimes in the country. This paper will as well try to analyze the effectiveness of the cooperation between Australia custom laws and the international community represented by the Convention in as far as the fight against drug and psychotropic substance trafficking is concerned. This paper will argue about these issues and will relate through practical exemplification of the reality of the presence of drug crime in Australia. Introduction The Australian government has been relentlessly participate together with the international community in the fight against illicit traffic o drugs and other psychotropic substances which apart from intimidating legitimate trade of these drugs, it also threatens the livelihood of many populations. It is important to consider that many of these drugs and psychotropic substances remains potentially a target to the youth. This proportion of the population being the most productive members in these populations, the illicit traffic of drugs and psychotropic substances has remained a big blow to the economic development of the se communities. The practice also denies the government much revenue and scares away international investment within the country. The relationship that has been attributed to exist between illicit traffic of drugs and psychotropic substances and other crime cannot be over emphasized. Many countries where illicit traffic of these drugs exists have high crime rates a phenomenon which adversely scares away foreign investments. In general, the negative effects that are as a result of illicit traffic of drugs and psychotropic substance abuse are far reaching (Bolt, 2007). Drugs laws in Australia dates back to 1857, a period during which trade in opium had taken course in many parts of the world. This was a period where the control of drug trade was regulated not in such countries like the United States, Britain, China and several others (Bolt, 2007). The responsibility was regarded as social and was left in the hands of the individual involved rather than a social responsibility. This particular law was less of a custom law because it only saw the induction of duty in the importation of opium. The effect was less felt because the traders would do at least anything to oversee that their trade was not subjugated. The elevated levels of trade and the negative effects this trade had on the economy as well as to the humanity of the populations necessitated imposition of more strict laws to mitigate this trade and to finally to stop the trade (Bolt, 2007). The United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances remains the greatest achievement that the international community has achieved in the war against this trade. The achievement that has been realized as a result of this Convention is significant. However, there still remain some loose ends that the Convention should take as a challenge and the international community has a role to play to ensure that this vice is eradicated completely (UN, 2009) United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988 and Australian Customs Law The Convention has provided a platform where the international community comes together and joins hands in fight against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and other psychotropic substances. It calls for international cooperation among the members to participate in creating a more effective and comprehensive approach to this problem. Article 2 of the Convention call for the members to carry out their obligations in the legislation and administration and that they should offer the requisite financial provisions to assist in the fight against the trade (UN, 2009). The Australian government has in this accord ensured that it has placed laws that enforce the police department to conduct necessary practices in search of drugs in individual premises. Section 148 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 allows the police to use sniffer dogs without a warrant to detect illicit substances. Police can therefore use a dog for general drug detection without a warrant for a person “who is at, entering or leaving: premises licensed for the consumption of liquor sold there (not including a restaurant or dining room) a public place being used for ‘a sporting event, concert or other artistic performance, dance party, parade or other entertainment’ a train, bus or light rail vehicle, on a prescribed route, or a station, platform or stop.” (Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, s 148) The police have also been granted the right to use drug detection dogs in a general drug detection process on persons in streets or in their cars as included in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, section 149. The same Act in section 147 continues to empower the police in their work of general drug detection (UN, 2009). Section 155 of the same act explains that where the police suspect that a person has swallowed or is internally concealing a prohibited drug and that the person has committed or is committing an offence involving supply of a prohibited drug, they may detain them to arrange an internal search (Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, section 155). They have also been given authority to search property for the presence of illicit drugs upon suspicion. In this regard, sections 48 and 47 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 provides that “to enter a person’s home or any other private property without an invitation, the police must have a search warrant. This means that they must swear on oath to an authorized officer that they have reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed on those premises, and the basis of that suspicion” (UN, 2009) Collectively, the Australian government has ensured that ample financial aid had been accorded to potential private and government sectors that direct their efforts in trying to mitigate illicit drug traffic and abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. This appears in conformity with the provisions of Article 2 of the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic of Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. Article 3 of this Convention details the nature of the offences and sanctions that are to be imposed upon offences made in contradiction of the provisions (UN, 1988). It also explains that apart from sanctions which will take the forms of pecuniary sanctions and confiscation, deprivation of liberty or imprisonment, the responsible bodies can offer to the victims aftercare treatment and rehabilitation facilities in the same regard. This is explained in Article 3 paragraph 4 (b) (Roman et al, 2005). The Australian court system honor the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention by ruling that individuals who are convicted of illicit drug trafficking or abuse should undergo a treatment programme and they should report successful completion of the treatment programme to a law court where the judge can determine the course of penalty taking into consideration of the treatment programme. The government has as well set other exercises of criminal jurisdiction established in accordance with the domestic law as it is allowed under Article 4 of the UN Convention (UN, 1988) Article 7 provides the basis at which legal assistance will be conducted in matters relating to investigations, prosecutions and in judicial proceedings in relation to criminal offences as outlined under Article 3 (1). Involved parties are required to offer any forms of assistance with one another when such assistance is important in rendering jurisdiction of offences carried out within their territory or as it is provided under Article 4 of the Convention (UN, 1988). Australia has implemented this provision and has set up laws regarding importation and exporting of prohibited drugs (Customs Act section 233B). This Customs Act also explains that “it is an offense to assist or be knowingly concerned in any illegal importation of drugs. The prosecution must prove that the accused was fully aware of what was going on and performed some act such as providing money.” Article 12 provides for the action to be enforced in cases regarding use of substances in illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. Paragraph 1 of this Article provides that States shall co-operate in taking necessary measures to preclude diversion of substances listed in table 1 and 2 to be used in illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances (UN, 2009). Paragraph 9 provides the basis of trade in these substances listed in table 1 and 2. In this regard, the Convention requires States to establish and maintain systems to monitor international trade of such substances in order prevent illicit trafficking of these substances (UN, 2009). Australia has employed Custom laws to oversee matters regarding the manufacture of prohibited drugs under section 24. The jurisdiction upon conviction of having committed a crime as per the provisions stated under this section can see one into a 15 years jail term and a corresponding fine of $220 000 (Bolt, 2007). This will however depend on the amount of the prohibited drug involved. This ruling can extend to a jail term of 20 years and a fine of $385 000 if the offence postulate manufacturing of illicit drug in commercial quantities and could even be worse to include life imprisonment and a fine of up to $550 000. Such harsh court rulings are supposed to scare away potential crime involving illicit trafficking and manufacture of the same (Bolt, 2007). This action comes in line with the Article 13 of the UN Convention. The awe of rising trend of cultivation of plants used in the manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances called for the need of the constitution of laws that will oversee and prevent illegal cultivation of such plants. The provisions under Article 14 of the UN Convention aim at mitigating illicit cultivation of narcotic plants. Paragraph 2 of this Article requires States to participate in formulation of measures to prevent illicit cultivation and to eradicate demands of such plants containing narcotic or psychotropic substances. Australian laws regarding illicit drugs have also created some provisions that see that the cultivation of such plants is only done under license. Section 23 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) provides that it is an offence under s 23(1) to: cultivate knowingly take part in the cultivation of possess supply a prohibited plant. Section 3 of this Act provides that cultivation include the act of sowing seed, planting, tending, nurturing or harvesting. The Act has conclusively looked into this matter in an attempt to discourage cultivation of narcotic plant by any means possible (Bolt, 2007). Great achievement in the fight against illicit traffic achievement has been realized and as a result, in the year 2000, Australia went through what was referred to as heroin drought. During this period, the high grade cocaine became very scarce in the streets. However, the fight against cocaine was not enough as it allowed the entry of other drugs into the country. Drug users found alternatives in morphine, temazepam, oxycodone and others. In 2008, there emerged a new route of illicit traffic of cocaine from Afghan (Bolt, 2007). In regard to this phenomenon, the government came up with the National Drug Strategy which enacted what has been referred to as ‘harm minimization policy’. This policy entailed a threefold policies of demand, supply and harm reduction. According to the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy (2004), the threefold policy involves: Supply reduction strategies to disrupt the production and supply of illicit drugs, and the control and regulation of licit substances. It also involves ensuring secure borders and prosecution of those involved in illicit substances trafficking. Demand reduction strategies to prevent the uptake of harmful drug use, including abstinence orientated strategies and treatment to reduce drug use; this involves programs promoting abstinence or treating existing users. Strategies for reducing drug related harm to individuals and communities. It is a policy that is a safety net to the preceding two policies. The threefold model accepts that harm prevention and supply prevention will never be completely effective, and if people are involved in risky activities, the damage they cause to themselves and society at large should be minimized. It involves programs like needle & syringe programs and safe injecting sites, which aim to prevent the spread of disease or deaths from overdoses, while providing users with support to reduce or stop using drugs. This policy in unison with other Custom laws that have been enacted by the Australian constitution has substantially help in the mitigation of illicit traffic inside and out of the country. The drug Acts enacts harsh rulings that scare away potential drug criminals and related crime. Several major drug cases have been ruled over in the Australian court systems. On December 2005, Nguyen Toung Van was hanged at Singapore following conviction of drug trafficking (The Age, 2005). In Singapore, those found misusing the Drugs Act faces a mandatory death sentence. He was hanged despite pleas for clemency from the Australian government, Holy See, Amnesty international as well as from individual groups. This shows that the government is not ready to compromise its fight against drug trafficking at any cost (The Age, 2005). Through out the trial period, Van claimed that he engaged in crime in an attempt to pay off his debts that were amounting to approximately A$20 00 to A$25 000. Apparently, a package of heroin had been found wrapped around his body at Singapore Changi Airport (The Age, 2005). He also informed the police about another package that was in his luggage. He confessed in Singapore High Court about being in possession of 396.2 grams of heroin and was henceforth sentenced to death on 20th March 2004 (The Age, 2005). The jurisdiction of this case led to the then Australian Prime Minister John Howard issue a warning statement to the young people against illicit traffic of narcotic drugs. He said on Melbourne radio “I don't believe in capital punishment, he was a convicted drug trafficker and that is to be wholly condemned ... don't have anything to do with drugs. Don't use them, don't touch them, don't carry them, don't traffic in them and don't imagine for a moment—for a moment—that you can risk carrying drugs anywhere in Asia without suffering the most severe consequences” (The Age, 2005). Federal Health Minister though not contented with the decision that was taken by Singapore took the moment to remind the people of Australia that drug trafficking is such a serious crime and that people should understand the heavy penalties imposed once convicted in Australia and even more drastic penalties elsewhere across the world (The Age, 2005). Although the Australian government attempted to advance clemency pleas to the Singapore government against the execution of death penalty on one Mr. Van with no notable success, the Australian prime minister put it clear that the country would not hold any punitive reaction against Singapore. Although several criticisms have occurred in relation to this execution, Australian government has maintained that the relationship between these two countries was not affected (Worldpress, 2005). A similar case occurred in 1986 in what is referred to as Barlow and Chambers Execution. This execution was made by Malaysia following conviction of the two of trafficking 141.9 grams of heroin (Murphy, 2005). This came after the enactment of Malaysian new law dealing with illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs. According to this law, once convicted of trafficking over 15 grams of heroin, a death penalty would b the prescription. The Australian prime minister by then, Bob Hawke made clemency plea which made little or no effect to the already made death penalty. He later on described the hanging as “barbaric”. This remark temporarily deteriorated the relationship between the two countries (Murphy, 2005). The relationship however has been renovated and the two countries have joined the international community by being signatory to the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. Another drug related case involves a woman by the name Holly Deane-Johns. She was convicted of trying to traffic 11 grams of heroin to Australia while some 15 grams was found in her apartment in Bangkok. She faced a death penalty but pleaded guilty in 2003 for her penalty to be reduced to 31 years under the Thai law (Baker, 2003). She spent seven years of her jail term in Klong Prem Central Prison and 2006 she applied for transfer to an Australian jail as it is allowed under the 2002 bilateral prisoner exchange agreement that was signed by the two countries (The Age, 2005). She arrived in Australia on 7th December 2007 where she was taken to Bandyup Women’s Prison where she will serve another five years of her jail term before her parole consideration Conclusion The Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances together with the Australian government has made impeccable contribution to the fight against illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in Australia and the world at large. It is important that the signatories to the Convention to understand the importance that is attached to international co-operation in the fight against illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (UN, 1988). They should realize that this is not and country’s responsibility but rather it calls for international community to come together if wiping this vice is anything to go by. Illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is not only a burden to a countries economy but also poses a threat to humanity. It is therefore necessary that countries who have not taken heed of the importance of becoming signatories to the Convention should embrace the opportunity (Bewley-Taylor et al, 2003) In Australia, the government has managed to bring down significantly the levels of crime related to illicit trade in narcotic drugs by imposing harsh laws to those convicted of committing these crimes. There however remains a challenge to the government to completely eliminate the remaining elements that still pose a threat in as far as illicit trafficking of drugs in and out of the country is concerned. References Baker M. (2003). Heroin Addict Escapes Thai Death Sentence. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/Articles/2003/07/04/1057179158696.html Bewley-Taylor, David R. & Fazey, S. J. (2003) The Mechanics and Dynamics of the UN. Retrieved from http://wn.com/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Illicit_Traffic_in_Narcotic_Drugs_and_Psychotropic_Substances_1988 Bolt S. (2007). Hot topics: Legal Issues in Plain Language. Sydney: Legal Information Access Center Bolt S. (2005). Rough Deal: A Plain English Guide to Drug Laws in NSW. Sydney: Redfern Legal Centre Publishing. Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy. (2004). The National Drug Strategy: Australia’s integrated framework. Canberra: The Commonwealth of Australia Murphy, D. (2005). A Softly , Softly Approach Tried First. The Sidney morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/a-softly-softl...oach-tried-first/2005/12/01/1133422052417.html Roman, G.C., Ahn-Redding, H., Simon, J.R, (2005).Illicit drug policies, trafficking, and use the World over. Michigan: Lexington Books Ltd. The Age. (2005). The Age Lashes out of Lawyer. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/Articles/2005/12/02/1133422078900.html United Nations (1988). United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1988_en.pdf United Nation (2009). World Drug Report 2009. New York. United Nations Publications Worldpress. (2005). Singapore Execution Condemned. Retrieved from http://worldpress.org/Asia/2188.cfm Read More