Legal Process Analysis: Case Study on Prohibited Groups Act

This report analyzes a case study involving Wendy, Travis, and Linda and their potential offences under the Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act 2017. The case revolves around their actions protesting the meat industry and animal cruelty, which involved actions such as recording sounds at an abattoir and live streaming footage of animal cruelty. The report examines the relevant sections of the Act, including Section 3 (commission of a terrorist act), Section 4 (supply of terrorist group), and Section 5 (promoting terrorist activities). It details how the actions of Wendy (charged under sections 3 and 5), Travis (charged under section 5), and Linda (charged under sections 4 and 5) are interpreted under the Act and the potential penalties they face, including imprisonment and fines. The report also considers the possibility of a defense based on the actors' intentions and good faith, and concludes by summarizing the potential penalties associated with each section of the Act.

Running head: LEGAL PROCESS
Legal Process
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LEGAL PROCESS
Table of Contents
Issue.................................................................................................................................................2
Rules................................................................................................................................................2
Application......................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8
Reference.........................................................................................................................................9

2LEGAL PROCESS
Issue
According to the case study the issue has been arises whether Wendy, Travis and Linda
has committed any offence under the Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act 2017 or not?
Rules
As per the case study Linda, Travis and Wendy want to take initial steps against meat
industry and cruelty towards the animals. The Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Bill has been
passed recently in 2017 which has been formed by the Commonwealth government for dealing
with threat of terrorism under some specific legislation1. Therefore the government has added
that Australian society has been threatened and under the fear of terrorism. Therefore this bill
helps to apply the strong legal sanctions against any kind of violence or Anti Social activities or
the groups who try to pursue their goals through the violent activities towards the citizenship of
Australia. The legislation has been formed with serious penalties where it affect the Australian
citizen for attacking on create any violence towards them. The application of this Prohibited
Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Bill 2017 will help to prevent such attacks on the Australian people and
the government also2. It also helps to keep the Australian people safe and stop extremist violence
towards the citizens by the terrorist. The act has been also mention to help the Australian people
from every injury, death or harm by the prohibited groups who are involved in the threatening or
any violence towards them3.
1 Lynch, Andrew, Nicola McGarrity, and George Williams. Inside Australia's anti-terrorism laws and trials.
NewSouth, 2015.
2 Hosen, Nadirsyah. "Law, religion and security." Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion (2015): 337.
3 Beckman, James. Comparative legal approaches to homeland security and anti-terrorism. Routledge, 2016.

3LEGAL PROCESS
The section 3 of the Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act 2017 has been stated the
commission of a terrorist act where it has legislated that any person who is a member of a
prohibited group or whilst to be a member of under the prohibited group and if he has involves
with any terrorist act and found guilty of any such violence offences then he will be charged of
guilty under the section. The Australian government has set up to 10 years of imprisonment for
the guilty of the offence of any violence activities towards the Australian citizens.
The Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act 2017 has stated the supply of terrorist group
in the Section 4 in this act. This section has described that any person who will be found to
supply any weapons or dangerous goods to any member of a terrorist group will found guilty of
an offence under this section. It will also define the threats towards the Australian people for
committing and terrorist act. If any person found guilty of any offences under Section 4 then the
court may provide penalty of $10,000 or up to 1 year of imprisonment4.
The Section 5 of Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act Bill has legislates the act of
promoting terrorist activities. It defines that if any person found to form, join and distribute any
information on behalf of or promotes the activities of a group of terrorist then he will found
guilty of an offence under the Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act 20175. Therefore there is
no right of any terrorist activated group not to involve any person or provoked to enter in such
terrorist activities and must not distribute any information which explain any violence activities
towards the Australian citizens. Then it will be treated as an offence under section 5 of
Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act 2017. If any person has found guilty of the offence of
promoting terrorist activities under Section 5 of Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act 2017
4 Lynch, Andrew, Nicola McGarrity, and George Williams. Inside Australia's anti-terrorism laws and trials.
NewSouth, 2015.
5 Hosen, Nadirsyah. "Law, religion and security." Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion (2015): 337.

4LEGAL PROCESS
then the court may order for penalties of up to 18 months of imprisonment of that offender who
has committed that effects of promoting terrorist activities6.
Application
The fact of the case study is Wendy and Travis has decided to be a vegan after watching a
gruesome documentary about the meat industry and became emotional for the cruelty on the
animals in the meat industry7. They decided to protest and take actions against such cruelty on
the animals and tried to record the sound of animals in a local abattoir. Every day they watched
the arrival of the trucks which carries animals for the meat and animal products. After some days
they again decided to take some initiative steps towards the protest against the cruelty to the
animals8. Therefore they send messages to their friends from social media but only one person
Linda has make the responses to them in their plan. After that they made a plan where they used
some bolt cutters for cutting a hole into the wire fence and used an oxyacetylene welder to burn
the lock off the front door and then set up a camera inside it for watching what happens with the
animals of the meat industry inside the local abattoir9.
The details they have found which has been also live streamed through a channel which
showed an extreme instances of cruelty towards the animals which are using for the meat and
anima products make the media outrage and criminal charges against the owner. However, the
Federal police has go through the case and decided to charge Wendy under section 3 and 5,
6 Beckman, James. Comparative legal approaches to homeland security and anti-terrorism. Routledge, 2016.
7 Lynch, Andrew, Nicola McGarrity, and George Williams. Inside Australia's anti-terrorism laws and trials.
NewSouth, 2015.
8 Hosen, Nadirsyah. "Law, religion and security." Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion (2015): 337.
9 Lynch, Andrew, Nicola McGarrity, and George Williams. Inside Australia's anti-terrorism laws and trials.
NewSouth, 2015.

5LEGAL PROCESS
Travis has been charged under section of 5 and Linda has been charged under section of 4 and 5
according to the Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act 201710.
Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act or Bill has been introduced under the
Commonwealth Government for providing the safety from any terrorism activities or any harm
or any injuries to the Australian Citizen11.
Here according to the case facts Wendy has been charged under the Section 3 and 5 under
the Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act where section 3 defines the commission of a terrorist
act where it has legislated that any person who is a member of a prohibited group or whilst to be
a member of under the prohibited group and if he has found the involvements with any terrorist
act and found guilty of any such violence offences then he will be charged of guilty under the
section12. The Australian government has set up to 10 years of imprisonment for the guilty of the
offence of any violence activities towards the Australian citizens. The section 5 defines if any
person has found guilty of the offence of promoting terrorist activities under Section 5 of
prohibited groups and terrorism act 2017 then the court may order for penalties of up to 18
months of imprisonment of that offender who has committed that effects of promoting terrorist
activities. It also defines that if any person found to form join and distribute any information on
behalf of or promos the activities of a group of terrorist then he will found guilty of an offence
under the prohibited groups anti-terrorism act 201713.
Wendy has been charged with section 3 of Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act
because she has carried the whole plan of the live streaming of video in the local abattoir where
10 Hosen, Nadirsyah. "Law, religion and security." Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion (2015): 337.
11 Beckman, James. Comparative legal approaches to homeland security and anti-terrorism. Routledge, 2016.
12 Hosen, Nadirsyah. "Law, religion and security." Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion (2015): 337.
13 Lynch, Andrew, Nicola McGarrity, and George Williams. Inside Australia's anti-terrorism laws and trials.
NewSouth, 2015.

6LEGAL PROCESS
it has involved with the cruelty with the animals. She has made an offence. The section 5 has
been charged due to the promoting of such activities in the social media where it promotes the
violence activities and distribution of the information14.
Travis has been charged with the offences under the section 5 of Prohibited Groups
(Anti-Terrorism) Act which has defined the act of promoting terrorist activities. It defines that if
any person found to form join and distribute any information on behalf of or promotes the
activities of a group of terrorist then he will found guilty of an offence under the prohibited
groups anti-terrorism act 2017. 15Therefore there is no right of any terrorist activated group not to
involve any person or provoked to enter in such terrorist activities and must not distribute any
information which explain any violence activities towards the Australian citizens then it will be
treated as an offence under section 5 of prohibited groups anti-terrorism act 2017. If any person
has found guilty of the offence of promoting terrorist activities under Section 5 of prohibited
groups and terrorism act 2017 when the court can give order for penalties of up to 18 months of
imprisonment of that offender who has committed that effects of promoting terrorist activities.
Travis has been charged with the section 5 of the Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act
because he has found to inform his social Medias friends their protest against the cruelty towards
the animals which are uses in the meat and animal products. He also found to involvements in
the live streaming videos about the cruelty of animals16.
Linda has been charged under the Section 4 and 5 under the Prohibited Groups (Anti-
Terrorism) Act where section 4 has legislates the supply of terrorist group in this act. This
14 Hosen, Nadirsyah. "Law, religion and security." Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion (2015): 337.
Beckman, James. Comparative legal approaches to homeland security and anti-terrorism. Routledge, 2016.
15
16 Hosen, Nadirsyah. "Law, religion and security." Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion (2015): 337.

7LEGAL PROCESS
section has described that any person who will be found to supply any weapons or dangerous
goods to any member of a terrorist go will found guilty of an offence under this section. It will
also define the threats towards the Australian people for committing and terrorist act. If any
person found guilty of any offences under Section 4 then the court may provide penalty of
$10,000 or up to 1 year of imprisonment17.
Linda has been charged with the section 4 Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act as she
worked at a hardware store and so she bought the bolt cutters and the welder and gave them to
Wendy on the night. Therefore according to the legislation she has found to supply weapons or
dangerous goods to Wendy for application their protest plans against the cruelty towards the
animals18. She has been also charged with the section 5 of the Prohibited Groups (Anti-
Terrorism) Act because she also found to involvements in the live streaming videos about the
cruelty of animals which has been occur in a local abattoir where animals are suffering from
extreme cruelty as because they are using in the meat and animal products19.
The section 5 of Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act has describe the the act of
promoting terrorist activities. It defines that if any person found to form join and distribute any
information on behalf of or promos the activities of a group of terrorist then he will found guilty
of an offence under the prohibited groups anti-terrorism act 2017. Therefore there is no right of
any terrorist activated group not to involve any person or provoked to enter in such terrorist
activities and must not distribute any information which explain any violence activities towards
the Australian citizens then it will be treated as an offence under section 5 of prohibited groups
anti-terrorism act 2017. If any person has found guilty of the offence of promoting terrorist
17 Beckman, James. Comparative legal approaches to homeland security and anti-terrorism. Routledge, 2016.
18 Hosen, Nadirsyah. "Law, religion and security." Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion (2015): 337.
19 Lynch, Andrew, Nicola McGarrity, and George Williams. Inside Australia's anti-terrorism laws and trials.
NewSouth, 2015.

8LEGAL PROCESS
activities under Section 5 of prohibited groups and terrorism act 2017 then the court may order
for penalties of up to 18 months of imprisonment of that offender who has committed that effects
of promoting terrorist activities20.
Therefore according to the facts of the case all of them Wendy, Travis and Linda have
felt very strongly that it is morally wrong for people to eat meat and animal products but as per
the Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act they did all the activities illegally which brought
them legal notices for the offences. They could use the facts and reasons for their activities as a
defense where they can state that they did the acts for the morality and they do not have any
intention to create any harm or injury to any person. The act of good faith may reduce their
penalties for those offences which has been they did under the Prohibited Groups (Anti-
Terrorism) Act21.
Conclusion
As per the case facts for the involvement with several illegal activities under the
Prohibited Groups (Anti-Terrorism) Act the section 3 has provided the penalties up to 10 years
of imprisonment, section 4 legislates the $10000 fine or up to 1 year imprisonment and section 5
legislates the imprisonment up to 18 months for the offenders. If Wendy, Travis and Linda has
found guilty with the offences under the section 3,4 and 5 of the Prohibited Groups (Anti-
Terrorism) Act they could be fined with penalties or have imprisonments for their offences of
terrorism activities to the local abattoir where it runs a business of meat and animal products22.
20 Beckman, James. Comparative legal approaches to homeland security and anti-terrorism. Routledge, 2016.
21 Beckman, James. Comparative legal approaches to homeland security and anti-terrorism. Routledge, 2016.
22 Lynch, Andrew, Nicola McGarrity, and George Williams. Inside Australia's anti-terrorism laws and trials.
NewSouth, 2015.

9LEGAL PROCESS
Reference
Ananian-Welsh, Rebecca, and George Williams. "The new terrorists: The normalisation and
spread of anti-terror laws in Australia." Melb. UL Rev. 38 (2014): 362.
Awan, Imran, and Brian Blakemore, eds. Extremism, Counter-terrorism and Policing. Routledge,
2016.
Beckman, James. Comparative legal approaches to homeland security and anti-terrorism.
Routledge, 2016.
Hosen, Nadirsyah. "Law, religion and security." Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion
(2015): 337.
Lynch, Andrew, Nicola McGarrity, and George Williams. Inside Australia's anti-terrorism laws
and trials. NewSouth, 2015.
Sarre, Rick. "Metadata Retention as a Means of Combatting Terrorism and Organised Crime: A
Perspective from Australia." Asian Journal of Criminology 12.3 (2017): 167-179.
Saul, Ben. "Minorities and Counter-Terrorism Law." (2017).
Williams, George. "Anti-terrorism laws and human rights." Rev. Const. Stud. 19 (2014): 127.