Page 3932 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 29 November 2022

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

out a range of factors that judicial officers are required to take into account in considering whether an alleged offender should receive bail.

Clearly, in this case that judicial officer formed a view. As Attorney-General, I will not comment on individual cases. I also was not present for this particular matter, so I am not clear about the basis on which the judicial officer took that decision. They have weighed up the factors and they have made that decision. The answer to Ms Lee’s question about how this decision was taken is: the judicial officer took the decision in light of the evidence presented to that judicial officer and the considerations under the act.

MADAM SPEAKER: As we proceed, I remind members of continuing resolution 10, on matters that are sub judice. If this is an active case, it cannot be referred to. Questions may be asked in general terms. Ms Lee.

MS LEE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Attorney-General, what do you say to the shattered families to explain that a review of bail is not necessary?

MR RATTENBURY: My heart goes out to those families. This is a dreadful set of circumstances. We have indicated that we are doing work on the Bail Act. Despite the attempt by members of the opposition to polarise this debate, we are seeking to take into account some of the concerns that have been expressed to us by the community. We are looking—and I have been very public about this—at whether the factors in the Bail Act both adequately give our judicial officers the remit to consider the issues they need to and provide sufficient direction to reflect the will of this Assembly and the community. I have indicated very publicly that we are looking at those considerations in the Bail Act. I am expecting to receive advice from the directorate in the near future.

MR HANSON: A supplementary.

MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, a supplementary, noting my comments before.

MR HANSON: Attorney-General, how many more families’ lives have to be destroyed to serve your ideology on bail and sentencing in the ACT, while you refuse to commit to an independent review?

MR RATTENBURY: I find the imputation from Mr Hanson somewhat offensive on a personal level. Clearly, judicial officers are faced with extremely difficult decisions on a regular basis. The ACT government have made it clear that we are looking at some of these factors. I have just answered Ms Lee’s questions to that effect. Mr Hanson might take note of my previous answers.

Justice—bail breaches

MR HANSON: My question is to the Attorney-General. Attorney-General, you have previously argued strongly that there is no need for bail reform or a review into sentencing and bail, as evidence has shown that reform of that sort is not necessary. Three months ago, a Canberra prisoner was granted day bail to attend a funeral.
The prisoner breached that bail and spent weeks on the run from police, only to be found barricaded in a room, claiming to be armed. This week the same prisoner asked

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video