Part 5: Disqualification of offenders for holding elective office etc Section 30: Disqualification orders
Subsection (1) of section 30 sets out the circumstances in which the section applies, i.e.:
An offender is convicted by a criminal court of an offence listed in Schedule 9 which was committed when the offender was aged 18 or over; and
The offence is aggravated by hostility related to candidates (as defined in section 32), holders of relevant elective offices (as defined in section 33) or campaigners (as defined in section 34).
	Subsection (2) provides that, in those circumstances, the court must, when dealing with the offender for the offence, also make a disqualification order. The effect of the disqualification order is that the offender is disqualified from being nominated for election to, being elected to or holding certain elective offices for a period of 5 years. This 5-year period starts on the date the order is made. Section 37 lists the relevant elective offices to which the disqualification applies.
	Under subsection (3) the court does not have to make the disqualification order if they consider it would be unjust due to particular circumstances about the offence or the offender. Where the court determines not to make the order, the court must give its reasons for not doing so in open court.
	Subsections (4) and (5) provide the criteria by which a court determines whether an offence is aggravated by hostility related to a candidate, holder of elective office or campaigner for the purposes of subsection (1)(c). Subsection (4)(a) provides that an offence is aggravated by hostility if the offender demonstrated hostility towards the victim of the offence because the victim is, or the offender presumes the victim to be, a candidate etc. Examples of this hostility include, but are not limited to, hostility based on: the victim’s status as a candidate etc.; activities undertaken wholly or partly in the victim’s capacity as a candidate etc.; an opinion held or not held by the candidate etc.; a policy advocated or opposed by the candidate etc. The hostility must be demonstrated by the offender at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after the commission of the offence.
	Subsection (4)(b) provides that an offence is aggravated by hostility if the offence was motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons in their capacity as candidates, holders of relevant elective offices or campaigners. Subsection (4)(b) does not specify that the ‘victim’ of the offence must be a candidate etc. in order for the offence to be aggravated by the necessary hostility. This means that an offence could be aggravated by hostility for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) where (for example) an offender commits a relevant offence against person A (e.g., a candidate’s parent) and that offence is motivated by the offender’s hostility towards person B because B is a candidate.
	Subsection (5) provides that it is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (4) whether or not an offender’s hostility is also based (to any extent) on any other factor not listed in that subsection, i.e., a factor other than the victim being or being presumed by the offender to be a candidate etc., or a factor other than hostility towards persons in their capacity as a candidate etc.
	Subsection (6) allows the court to consider evidence presented by the prosecution or defence in deciding whether or not to make a disqualification order under this section. Subsection (7) allows the court to consider such evidence even where that evidence would not have been admissible in the proceedings in which the offender was convicted.
	Subsection (8) provides, for the purposes of determining whether an offender was aged 18 or over when the offence was committed, that where an offender is found to be committed over more than a single day it is taken to have been committed on the last of those days.
	Subsection (9) provides definitions used in this section.