Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (23 October) . . Page.. 4134..

To properly discharge its regulatory functions, WorkCover cannot rely on findings of fact or law made by parties that are possibly involved in a safety incident. The collection of evidence is not a matter of 'negotiation' but is a requirement under the OHS Act. All matters requiring investigation by WorkCover are investigated by authorised WorkCover inspectors.

Supreme Court-quarterly report

(Question No 988)

Mr Stefaniak

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 September 2003:

In relation to the June 2003 quarterly report regarding the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory:

Sixteen matters during the quarter are listed 'decline to proceed'. Please give details of why each of these sixteen matters did not proceed;

Further, in relation to the quarterly report regarding the Supreme Court, two matters are listed 'permanent stay'. Please detail why a 'permanent stay' occurred in these particular matters;

In relation to the matters proceeding to Hearing that were dismissed, please indicate how many of those matters were heard by Judge alone and how many by Jury. In relation to the matters dealt with by a Jury please indicate whether any of those matters were dismissed as a result of the Judge either directing the Jury to dismiss the matter, or the Judge taking the matter away from the Jury;

Please give details of the offences that resulted in a custodial sentence being imposed and please list the sentence in each matter;

Please also give details of each matter and the non-custodial penalty imposed in relation to all other matters that were finalized by way of a finding of guilt before the Supreme Court in the quarter;

Please give details of the matters where home detention was imposed and also details of the sentence handed down in each of those matters.

Mr Stanhope: The answer to the member's question is as follows:

In relation to the June 2003 quarterly report regarding the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory:

A Notice to Decline Further in a Prosecution is filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The reason for filing such a notice is not disclosed to the Court.

These two matters were incorrectly coded. They should have been coded as "RM"- that is, remitted to Magistrates Court.

There were no aborted trials and no trials in which the Judge directed a verdict of acquittal. Four matters finalised in the June 2003 quarter were trials by Judge alone and

Next page . . . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search