Victoria

This is an amending Act to the Crimes Act 1958 (Victoria).

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (Victoria) aims to protect and promote the human rights set out in Part 2, including property rights and freedom from forced work (slavery), as well as the right to enjoy those human rights without discrimination. With respect to any proposed new law, the member of Parliament proposing the law must prepare a 'statement of compatibility', which must examine the proposed law’s compatibility (or incompatibility) with the human rights protected in the Charter.

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution v Jan, Victorian County Court (2024) is significant as it marks Australia’s first conviction for the offence of forced marriage. The defendant, a member of the Hazara Islamic community residing in Shepparton, Victoria, was convicted and sentenced for causing her 20-year-old daughter to enter into a forced marriage.

The Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) is the principal criminal statute in Victoria, codifying a wide range of offences, including; homicide, sexual and violent crimes, property offences, and various forms of abuse, while incorporating contemporary principles of consent, mental health defences, and protections for vulnerable persons.

The Equal Opportunity Act aims to eliminate discrimination, sexual harassment, victimisation to the greatest extent possible, and to promote equality as far as reasonably practicable. It defines and prohibits discrimination in relation to various 'attributes', including sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status and gender identity. The prohibitions apply in a range of situations, including employment-related discrimination.

In R. v. Davidson Supreme Court of Victoria (1969), Dr. Charles Kenneth Davidson, a medical doctor, was charged with four counts of unlawfully using an instrument and one count of conspiring to use an instrument or other means with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman. The Supreme Court of Victoria held that an abortion would be lawful if the accused had an honest and reasonable belief that the procedure was both “necessary” and “proportionate.”

In this context: