Introduction
The Summary Offences Act 1998 (NSW), was ratified by the legislative assembly and reviewed to address various less serious crimes. According to Quilter and McNamara (2013), the law addresses the crimes meant for the local adult and children’s courts. However, despite the law focusing on the less-serious crimes, some of the provisions assign life-long convictions. Additionally, the fines attached to some of the offences exceed those stipulated set for serious crimes. The case review examines the legal implications of Barney and Jessie’s decision to repaint the mall’s fountain. The summary offences act is used to interpret the students’ actions against the law. Barney and Jessie have committed an offence according to the provisions of section 7 of the 1998 act.
Case analysis and relevant provisions
Barney and Jessie’s actions contravene section seven of the summary offences Act of 1998. The section falls under part two and division one of the act. According to the case facts, the two students had just completed a project on the fountain in the centre of Beardy Street Mall. The project findings described the fountain as dull and claimed that it failed to represent any authentic or cultural perspective. After a few days, the two students decided to change the appearance of the fountain by painting cultural motifs and symbols. Barney, one of the students, maintained that the repainting process was meant to strengthen the academic claims presented in their report. A CCTV camera recorded all their conversations and activities that led to their arrest. According to section seven, it is an offence to damage wilfully or defaces any fountain that is erected in a public place. The crime falls under the title, offences in public and other place, and the division title, offensive behavior.
Provision’s components
The section stipulates that any person found to have damaged, defaced, entered upon, or caused a material to enter into a fountain that is erected in a public place will be liable for a fine not exceeding four penalty units. The act interprets one penalty unit as $110. Additionally, the provision separates the crimes into five activities that constitute a crime if a person is found to have willfully engaged in one of them. The section uses the conjunction, ‘or’ to separate the offences. The first offence is damaging a fountain. The other separate crimes are defacing, entering upon, causing a foreign material to enter into, or causing a foreign substance to enter into a fountain erected in a public place. Additionally, if any person engages in one of the offences and fails to do the others, the person will still be answerable to the crime of damaging a fountain (Cook, Creyke, Geddes & Hamer 2005).
Definition of terms
According to section three of the law, a public place is defined as any place used by the public irrespective of whether it is covered with water, for payment of money, or limited to a class of persons, provided that it is not a school. Additionally, it represents a part of premises. The section considers premises to include buildings or places built on or not representing a part of an area. The mall is open to the public and qualifies for consideration in the legal interpretation. Additionally, it has a ledge that is meant for public relaxation. Despite the specific definitions of the terms in the law, some words are taken in their ordinary meaning. The law does not alter the meaning of a fountain. Additionally, the terms used to describe the offences retain their original meaning. They all represent any action that can cause a change in the physical appearance, form, or nature of the fountains.
Relationship of the provision to others
The provision of damaging fountains focuses on the preservation and protection of fountains in public places. It emphasizes the significance of artworks and other artistic symbols in public places. One of the closely related provisions is section eight, which focuses on damaging or desecrating protected places. Although section eight focuses on several protected areas, it provides strict measures against those who damage or desecrate these places. Additionally, the second part of the law focuses on some minor offences in public places. Some of the issues addressed in the first division are offensive conduct, damaging protected places, and climbing on or jumping from buildings (Zeppel 2010). The provisions focus on protecting the interests of the public without compromising the safety of an individual. The provisions prevent individuals from changing the features, locations, or characteristics of protected and artistic symbols based on self-interests.
Application of provisions to case facts
In the case facts, the purpose of repainting the fountain using Aboriginal symbols was to enhance its beauty and cultural value. Barney argued that the fountain was not attractive to the residents. He claimed that it did not represent any cultural value to the residents. In fact, he justified his decision as having enhanced the beauty and cultural connectivity of the fountain to the residents. The defendants can argue that the high distinction received after completing their project is an indication that the fountain did not represent the cultural diversity and experiences of the residents. Additionally, the arresting officer stated that he had not realized that there was a fountain until the students repainted it using Aboriginal symbols. Although the fountain was in a public place and had been intended to represent the public interests, the students proved that it had failed to do so. In fact, the reaction that was reported after the repainting showed that the residents were pleased with the changes. Despite the possible justifications from the defendants, the students are guilty of defacing a fountain erected in the Beardy Street Mall.
Defacing is the process of changing the physical appearance of an object. It includes all activities that can be carried out to alter or transform the physical appearance and form of an object. Additionally, the law specifies that any of the actions will be considered illegal if a suspect is proved to have acted willfully. In the students’ case, the CCTV recorded their conversation. Barney initiated the conversation and convinced Jessie that the fountain was too ugly to represent its cultural and environmental mandate. In fact, he had proposed to Jessie that they destroy it. However, a short discussion led to the final decision of repainting it with Aboriginal symbols. The conversation shows that the students acted wilfully and without any form of intimidation or coercion. Additionally, they researched, contemplated, and executed their actions without any external influence. Although the high grades in their project convinced them that the arguments were correct, the supervisors and examiners did not have any direct influence on the students’ actions. In fact, Barney’s immediate response after his arrest was that he had improved the appearance of the fountain. In section seven of the law, a person is guilty of interfering with the appearance or nature of a fountain if the person acts willfully. Additionally, the students defaced the fountain using paints and brushes. The implications of their actions caused debates and public reactions. The students left visible alterations to the original color, nature, and appearance of the fountain.
The conversations recorded by the CCTV showed that Barney was determined to induce his interests to the residents. He argued that the fountain did not represent the residents’ experiences and cultures. The students took the mandate of influencing the public’s perceptions and imaginations. The actions of Barney and Jessie are illegal and subject to prosecution under the seventh section of the summary offences act 1998. The suspects’ intentions were clear and were wilfully executed without any form of coercion or intimidation. The process of painting Aboriginal symbols around the fountain’s ledge is a form of defacing its appearance. In fact, Barney had earlier intended to damage the fountain but settled on repainting as the final decision.
Conclusion
The students’ decision infringes section 7 of the summary offences act. The students believed that the fountain did not represent the cultural experiences of the residents. Additionally, they acted without any form of coercion or intimidation. When the students repainted the fountain, the changes caused discussions among the residents. The arresting officer confessed that he had never realized about the fountain’s existence. According to section seven of the act, the students are guilty of defacing the appearance of the fountain using Aboriginal paintings.
References
Cook C, Creyke, R, Geddes, R & Hamer, D 2005, Laying down the law, LexisNexis, London.
Quilter, J & McNamara, L 2013, ‘Time to Define the Cornerstone of Public Order Legislation: The Elements of Offensive Conduct and Language under the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW),’ UNSWLJ, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 534-562.
Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), No 25.
Zeppel, H 2010, ‘Managing cultural values in sustainable tourism: Conflicts in protected areas,’ Tourism and hospitality research, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 93-115.