SEPTEMBER 20 — In “Brodie’s law in Australia, Zara’s law in Malaysia?”, I shared the story of 19-year-old Brodie Panlock.

In 2007, an inquest into her tragic death exposed the traumatising and relentless bullying she suffered at her workplace. It led to the Australian State of Victoria’s anti-bullying legislation which came into force in June 2011 and made serious bullying a crime punishable by up to 10 years in jail.

The media covering the inquest could identify the provisions in the legislation as closely related with Brodie’s harassment at her workplace. Accordingly, the media dubbed the provisions “Brodie’s Law”.

Brodie’s Law can apply to all forms of serious bullying, including physical bullying, psychological bullying, verbal bullying and cyberbullying. It is not limited by the location at which the conduct occurred or was experienced by the victim. It can apply to bullying by young people in schools, although under Victorian law children under 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence.

For Brodie’s Law to apply, there must be a course of conduct, that is, repeated bullying behaviour. The bully must also intend that the bullying causes physical or mental harm, including self-harm, to the victim.

Brodie’s Law is actually provisions in the State’s Crimes Act 1958, inserted by way of amendments to Section 21A of the Act.

Here’s Brodie’s Law.

A person (the offender) bullies another person (the victim) if the offender engages in a course of conduct which includes any of the following:

(a) making threats to the victim;

(b) using abusive or offensive words to or in the presence of the victim;

(c) performing abusive or offensive acts in the presence of the victim;

(d) directing abusive or offensive acts towards the victim;

(e) giving offensive material to the victim or any other person or leaving it where it will be found by, given to or brought to the attention of, the victim or the other person;

(f) keeping the victim or any other person under surveillance;

(g) acting in any other way that could reasonably be expected;

(i) to cause physical or mental harm to the victim, including self-harm; or

(ii) to arouse apprehension or fear in the victim for his or her own safety or that of any other person — with the intention of causing physical or mental harm to the victim, including self-harm, or of arousing apprehension or fear in the victim for his or her own safety or that of any other person.

Mental harm includes:

(a) psychological harm; and

(b) suicidal thoughts.

An offender also has the intention to cause physical or mental harm to the victim, including self-harm, or to arouse apprehension or fear in the victim for his or her own safety or that of any other person if:

(a) the offender knows that engaging in a course of conduct of that kind would be likely to cause such harm or arouse such apprehension or fear; or

(b) the offender in all the particular circumstances ought to have understood that engaging in a course of conduct of that kind would be likely to cause such harm or arouse such apprehension or fear and it actually did have that result.

The offence of bullying does not apply to conduct engaged in by a person performing official duties for the purpose of:

(a) the enforcement of the criminal law; or

(b) the administration of any law; or

(c) the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; and

(d) the execution of a warrant.

If, according to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, the government wishes to establish a clear and precise definition of bullying which will be among the key areas of focus in drafting the proposed Anti-Bullying Tribunal Bill, then the Minister need not look any further.

What say you, Minister?

**This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.