Australian lawmaker convicted of rape quits moments before vote to expel him from Parliament
Gareth Ward, an independent member of parliament in New South Wales state, earlier refused to resign despite his July convictions by a jury for sex crimes against two young men. He failed in a legal bid Thursday to stop his peers taking rare action to expel him.
Ward, 44, sexually assaulted a political staffer after a parliamentary event in 2015 and abused an 18-year-old at the politician's home in 2013. His sentencing on one count of sexual intercourse without consent and three counts of indecent assault is scheduled for September.
Jailed lawmaker tries to stop ouster vote
In a bizarre and unusual episode for Australian politics, Ward refused to resign even after his bail was revoked last week following the convictions. He has said he plans to appeal and to keep his seat from jail in the meantime, prompting derision from his peers.
'If you're convicted of some of the most serious charges, sexual assault in New South Wales, you can't sit as a serving member of parliament drawing a parliamentary salary,' state Premier Chris Minns told reporters Friday. 'How can you represent your community from behind bars in Cessnock?'
Ward on Monday launched a legal challenge to an expulsion vote planned for Tuesday. The bid was dismissed by an appeals court Thursday, allowing a new parliamentary vote against him to be scheduled.
Resignation comes as lawmakers readied to vote
As lawmakers assembled to oust him from Parliament Friday morning — a measure expected to draw cross-party support — Ward wrote to the speaker of the house tendering his resignation. He would have been the first lawmaker to be expelled from the lower house of the state parliament in more than a century.
Leader of the House Ron Hoenig told reporters it was 'shameful' that Ward had taken so long to quit.
'I would have thought being a convicted rapist is enough infamy without going down in history as both a convicted rapist as well as the first person in a century to be expelled,' Hoenig said.
Expulsions from Australian legislatures are rare and only lawmakers in New South Wales and Victoria have ever exercised their powers to oust their peers by vote. The last lawmaker expelled from New South Wales' lower house for 'unworthy conduct' was in 1917.
Constituents reelected Ward despite the charges
Ward had held the seat of Kiama since 2011, first with the center-right Liberal Party and then as an independent after he quit the group when the charges against him emerged. A date has not been set for a byelection in his seat.
His constituents reelected him in 2023, despite his 2022 suspension from Parliament awaiting trial.
Ward's lawyer argued in the state's appeals court Thursday that the fact of his convictions alone did not automatically mean his conduct was unworthy. In a scathing decision rejecting his legal bid, the court ordered Ward to pay costs.
The former lawmaker faces a prison term of up to 14 years. He did not comment publicly Friday.
Ward was the state's minister for families, communities and disability services between 2019 and 2021. He served an eight-year term as a local council member before entering Parliament.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
28 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Recall Parliament to debate Netanyahu's Gaza plan, Green MP urges
Fronting the Green Party's bid for a recall of Parliament during the summer recess, Ellie Chowns warned the Israeli security cabinet's plan risked creating 'untold human suffering'. Mr Netanyahu's office has unveiled new principles for military action which include 'the demilitarisation of the Gaza Strip', 'Israeli security control in the Gaza Strip' and 'the establishment of an alternative civil administration that is neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority'. The Israel Defence Forces 'will prepare for taking control of Gaza City while distributing humanitarian assistance to the civilian population outside the combat zones'. More than 61,000 people have been killed during Israeli military action in Gaza, according to Gaza's health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its count, in a conflict which began after a Hamas-led attack killed around 1,200 people in southern Israel on October 7 2023. Among the count are at least 13 people killed in southern Gaza on Thursday as they sought aid in an Israeli military zone. 'Netanyahu's brutal plan to take control of Gaza is yet another declaration of intent to commit war crimes and will lead to untold catastrophic civilian suffering,' Ms Chowns said. 'The UK must do far more than simply express disapproval. 'We need to recall Parliament immediately to hold the UK Government to account, to urgently assess whether we are meeting our obligations under the Genocide Convention and to enact immediate measures — including sanctions on the Israeli cabinet and suspension of all military co-operation and arms sales — to prevent further atrocities. 'The consequences of delay will be measured in countless innocent lives lost.' The North Herefordshire MP also called on the Government to publish its risk assessment of genocide in Gaza or a timeline for evidence-gathering. She also urged ministers to use diplomatic channels to press for a ceasefire, unimpeded humanitarian access into Gaza, safe release of the remaining hostages and an international inquiry into allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israel. Critics of Mr Netanyahu's plan include Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who said the Israeli government risked bringing 'more bloodshed'. He said: 'The Israeli government's decision to further escalate its offensive in Gaza is wrong and we urge it to reconsider immediately. 'This action will do nothing to bring an end to this conflict or to help secure the release of the hostages.' German chancellor Friedrich Merz said Israel 'has the right to defend itself against Hamas's terror' and added working towards a ceasefire and release of the hostages were a 'top priority' for the government in Berlin. But 'the even harsher military action by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip, approved by the Israeli cabinet last night, makes it increasingly difficult for the German government to see how these goals will be achieved', he said.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Lincoln is out of prison but a ‘lifetime' penalty hangs over him. Does a NSW police anti-firearm scheme go too far?
Lincoln* calls his firearm prohibition order (FPO) a 'lifetime punishment'. It was placed on him after he left prison, and Lincoln says it made it difficult to feel as if he had a fresh start. Even when dating a new partner, he had to have a difficult conversation: that anywhere they went – at home or even in a car – he could be searched by police without a warrant due to the FPO. 'I'd been studying and working, doing all that kind of stuff, but still had that fear that at any minute they could come through the door,' Lincoln, who lives in Sydney, says. Weapon and firearm prohibition orders, which never expire, can be made if police deem that someone is not fit, in the public interest, to possess a firearm or weapon. Thousands of people in New South Wales are living under these orders – some as young as 14, others in their 80s and 90s. A Guardian Australia report in May revealed FPOs are disproportionately placed on Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. The majority of under-18s served with a FPO identified as Aboriginal. New data obtained from NSW police shows similar results for weapon prohibition orders (WPOs), which are often served simultaneously: of the 78 people served with a WPO under age 18, 55% identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. About 51% of the 4,267 people in NSW with WPOs identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander – a 'concerning level of over-representation', according to Jonathan Hall Spence, the principal solicitor with the Justice and Equity Centre. In response to questions from Guardian Australia, NSW police pointed to recent amendments to the procedures that govern FPOs and WPOs, including an independent review of any applications of FPOs for those under 18 by the commander of the firearms registry and an internal review of adult FPOs every five years. Timothy Roberts, the president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, said the FPO and WPO regime is an example of how the criminal justice system is increasingly being used punitively rather than for helping people rebuild or change. 'You've got a situation here where someone can walk out the door of a prison sentence that would serve their debt to the community, but then the police at their own discretion create a debt of their own,' he said. Claude Robinson knows more about this than most. At Rainbow Lodge in Sydney, Robinson helps men who have recently left prison get back on their feet. The long-running residential support program assists all sorts of people, but he's recently had to make a new rule: men with weapon and firearm prohibition orders can no longer stay there. Robinson's particular worry is how police deliver these orders. The first time someone was served with a FPO at the lodge, police called ahead, Robinson says. The next time, it was different: police came early in the morning with masks and weapons with no warning and pulled the man out in his underwear. Robinson says they served the order and searched the man's room, finding nothing. His program tries to teach men that if you behave in what Robinson calls 'a pro-social way', that the criminal justice system becomes irrelevant to your life. A show of force like this risks undoing the work of the program for everyone staying there, he says, and that's why men with these orders can no longer stay at the lodge – cutting off an important rehabilitative opportunity. 'The police turn up here in riot gear and … undo what it's taken us three months to get people to believe in 10 minutes,' Robinson says. FPOs and WPOs are applied at police discretion – not by a court. There is no requirement that the person committed a firearm or weapon-related offence. Alongside criminal history or gang associations, police can consider factors such as traffic infringements that demonstrate 'a general disregard for the law' when considering whether to make an FPO, according to NSW police standard operating procedures obtained by Guardian Australia. While both FPOs and WPOs do not expire, the latter cannot be appealed to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) – a situation affirmed in a 2020 decision before the tribunal. In his NCAT findings, Geoffrey Walker, a University of Queensland emeritus professor, remarked on submissions that argued 'most Australians would consider it unfair that a person should remain subject to a WPO, with its concomitant liability to warrantless search and seizure … long after the circumstances that caused the commissioner to form the opinion … had ceased to exist.' The FPO scheme's enhanced search powers mean police can search someone with an FPO or their premises or car at any time, 'as reasonably required', to determine if they have committed an offence by having a firearm, firearm parts or ammunition. While they were introduced in 2013 to combat gun crime, legal advocates have raised questions about the efficacy of FPO search powers, and whether they're being used as a surveillance tool rather than gun control. In 2023-24, police found firearms or firearm accessories in only 1.36% of 8,651 searches. The year before, there were only nine occasions when a firearm-related item was found out of 9,731 searches. According to the police FPO procedures, if police find other illegal items during a search, they must identify another legal authority to seize them. Brendan*, a former resident at Rainbow Lodge, didn't know what an FPO or WPO involved when he first received them from police. When he understood the FPO meant anywhere he went could be searched without notice, he stopped socialising out of concern that he would inadvertently bring police to the doors of friends and family. It's hard to move on when 'that's hanging over our head all the time', Brendan says. '[I'm] on edge all the time, waiting [for them] to bang on the door.' Both Lincoln and Brendan agree that they can see the purpose of something like an FPO if someone has committed a violent offence using a firearm, but are frustrated these orders are not decided in court. Typically, no lawyers are present when they're served. Robinson is also worried about the impact of these orders and what he calls the 'carte blanche' of FPO search powers on men trying to rebuild their lives after prison. 'It continues that negative relationship that the men who come here have with the police and [the belief] police do treat them differently,' Robinson says. 'That window of change where things need to get better is small and this doesn't help them.' Lincoln served the time that Australia's justice system decided was his punishment, but now he feels he has another never-expiring penalty hanging over him. 'You're saying, I want to be a completely different person with a different friend group and different work … but I'm also hiding this secret that ties me to a life I used to have and means that I'm different to everyone else. 'It's painful and I don't think it's fair.' * First names only used for privacy reasons.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Grenada government and opposition join forces to drop oath of allegiance to King Charles
The government and opposition in the Caribbean island of Grenada have joined forces to drop the oath of allegiance to the British crown amid growing calls to remove King Charles as the country's head of state. A statement from the government announcing the move said that in 'a commendable display of national unity' the country's parliament had agreed bills to amend the country's constitution. The change will remove the words 'His Majesty King Charles the Third, His Heirs and Successors' from the pledge of allegiance and replace them with 'Grenada'. In the statement, Grenada's prime minister, Dickon Mitchell, said: 'The unanimous support for this amendment demonstrates our shared commitment to national identity and constitutional progress and while we may differ on many issues, today we stand together in affirming that our allegiance belongs to Grenada and its people.' Later, he told local media: 'I don't think anyone in their right mind will expect me – or any future prime minister of Grenada – on taking the oath of office to serve them, that I should be swearing allegiance to King Charles, his heirs and successor.' He added: 'What is it about King Charles that is superior to me, that requires me not to swear allegiance to the people of Grenada but to him?' The prime minister added: 'Sovereign countries have excellent bilateral relations. That doesn't mean that you have to swear allegiance to the head of a state of another foreign country.' This only happened, he pointed out, because Grenada was a former British colony and not because it was voted on by Grenadians. The governor-general, Dame Cécile La Grenade, the Crown's representative in Grenada, assented to the two pieces of legislation to amend the oath, after they were approved in both the lower and upper Houses of Parliament. Grenada's tourism and culture minister, Adrian Thomas, said the move was a response to decades of calls from Grenadians to change the oath, setting it amid a broader trend to decolonise society, assert the country's independence and reform the constitution. He said: 'Although we still have many institutions, like the royal prison, the Royal Grenada Police Force, we are on the road to decolonising our society and apart from the oath of allegiance we will be doing much more in years to come.' On the streets of St George's, communications consultant Sherene Thomas-Isaac, said the change was 'long overdue'. 'We're independent. I think that's a mark of our sovereignty … We have to follow the true course of what independence means for our region,' she said. The change to the oath comes as the Grenada Reparations Commission vowed to step up the pursuit of an apology and reparations from the monarch and intensify calls for the removal of King Charles as the country's head of state, after new research revealed that George IV personally profited from slavery on the Caribbean island. Arley Gill, the head of the commission, thanked Francis Alexis, a former attorney general and government minister, for lobbying for the change, which he described as 'one small step in the further deconstruction of a new colonialism process'. Gill said: 'We need to strengthen the lobby in Grenada to get rid of the king as head of state. The royal family is not fit and proper to be the head of state of a country where they have directly profited from slavery. We need to move to republicanism immediately.'
