Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2021 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 31 March 2021) . . Page.. 740 ..


seeks an exclusion order in relation to property subject to an unexplained wealth restraining order, they must satisfy the court that the property does not need to be restrained to satisfy an unexplained wealth order. This will ensure that the scheme operates as intended.

The bill also amends the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act to make process improvements to the intensive correction order scheme. An intensive correction order allows an offender to serve a sentence of imprisonment in the community under strict conditions. One of the core conditions of intensive correction orders is for offenders not to commit or be convicted of a new offence punishable by imprisonment. If an offender is convicted of a new offence punishable by imprisonment, the court which imposed the intensive correction order must cancel that order and order the offender to serve the rest of the sentence in prison unless it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.

The amendments made by the bill clarify the process for bringing an offender who is serving an intensive correction order when convicted of a new offence punishable by imprisonment before the appropriate court. The amendments also clarify which court must deal with the intensive correction order breach, depending on which court made or amended the intensive correction order and which court convicts the offender for the new offence.

The bill amends the Criminal Code to correct a drafting anomaly in the provisions for the offence of serious vilification. The offence prohibits the most extreme or threatening forms of discrimination. The bill does not make any substantive change to the offence but corrects a cross-reference to one of the elements of the offence which arose when an additional form of discrimination was added to the list of types of discrimination relevant to this offence. The bill does not change the nature of the offence or the types of behaviour this offence covers. The anomaly addressed by the incorrect cross-reference has not affected any potential prosecutions of the offence.

Finally, the bill amends the Magistrates Court Act to change the time frame for appeals against convictions. The Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety recommended this change in 2015, as part of its inquiry into sentencing reports. This amendment gives effect to that information. Currently, an appeal against a Magistrates Court conviction must be lodged within 28 days of conviction. In some cases, this time frame has expired before sentencing, which means that the accused cannot take the sentence into account in deciding whether to appeal. It also means that the defendant sometimes needs to lodge two appeals, one against the conviction and another against the sentence.

This amendment provides that a defendant can appeal against a Magistrates Court conviction in the 28 days after sentencing. This has benefits for defendants, who can make an informed decision about whether to appeal. It will also streamline the appeals process, as fewer defendants will file separate appeals against conviction and sentence.

As flagged by Mr Cain, I will also be moving amendments in the detail stage of the debate, to include amendments to the Bail Act to support a more flexible and


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video