Page 1185 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 10 May 2023
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Supreme Court Amendment Bill 2023
Mr Rattenbury, by leave, pursuant to notice, presented the bill, its explanatory statement and a Human Rights Act compatibility statement.
Title read by Clerk.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong—Attorney-General, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Gaming and Minister for Water, Energy and Emissions Reduction) (11.11): I move:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
I am pleased to present the Supreme Court Amendment Bill 2023 to the Assembly. The bill amends the Supreme Court Act 1933 to create a new right to appeal a conviction on the grounds of fresh and compelling evidence.
Addressing wrongful convictions, or miscarriages of justice, is of considerable interest to the public. Wrongful conviction cases have inspired literature, film, music and podcasts and appeal strongly to our sense of fairness. These cases can be incredibly complex and highly emotive, especially where the relevant crime is extremely serious and the matter has received media attention.
Our criminal law system is underpinned by the right to the presumption of innocence. This right, contained in article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is reflected in section 22(1) of the Human Rights Act 2004. The burden of proving a charge beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution and, until proved guilty, the person charged has the right to be presumed innocent.
However, our legal system is not infallible and sometimes things go wrong. While rare, issues can come to light which may later bring into question whether an innocent person has been mistakenly found guilty. Public confidence in the criminal justice system is essential to its operation. We need to be certain that each element of the system is working effectively and, if there are errors, that they can be corrected as efficiently as possible.
Currently, in the ACT, a person convicted of an offence may appeal their conviction where the jury verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence; the judgement should be set aside because of a wrong decision of a question of law; or on any other grounds where there was a miscarriage of justice.
However, currently, a convicted person may only appeal their conviction once on these grounds. The convicted person may also request the executive to exercise the prerogative of mercy or seek an inquiry into the conviction, something which has only happened once in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video