Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 308 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
could allow security officers to exercise their powers at a reasonable distance from entrances to court buildings.
On occasions when I or others have needed the assistance of court security, I have noted the constraints upon them in dealing with difficult clients. The skill of the security officers in defusing and de-escalating conflict is notable. I would hope that, whatever new powers security officers are granted, their primary strategy for responding to such persons will continue to be low key.
Second, there have been a couple of times when highly volatile defendants, especially those who are without legal representation, have carried large items unchecked into open court rooms. On at least one occasion I was very concerned that the baggage may contain a concealed weapon.
Finally, the suite of rooms where I and others are located are quite vulnerable. Again, it would be a welcome enhancement if court officers could assert stronger 'move-on' powers in situations that warrant it.
I hope these comments are useful.
Yours sincerely
Robyn Holder
Victims of Crime Coordinator
The idea of this bill is to ensure that police, the court's officers and the security staff there do have a clear legal authority when undertaking security measures for the protection of persons and property at ACT courts. I have indicated there are checks and balances on that. There have been several occasions in the past where security measures have been necessary to protect court staff, visitors or the conduct of hearings from violence or disruption. I think it is far from clear whether security staff have had an appropriate legal basis for their actions. This legislation will give court users and security staff certainty as to their respective rights and obligations, while at the same time ensuring that the processes of justice can proceed without risk or harm of disruption. The courts, the Victims of Crime Coordinator-and I have just read that letter-the DPP and the ACT Law Society all have daily experience of events in court, and they have confirmed the need for greater security measures.
I want to reiterate that the government does not intend the whole range of measures in the bill to be invoked every day or for every court user. Quite clearly that would be a nonsense; that would go against centuries of tradition of openness in terms of people attending court. But the measures in the bill are necessary for those occasions where the nature of the matter before the court means that there is a risk of potential harm to the court, its staff members or members of the public.
In developing the bill, the government was mindful of the need to balance the public interest in protecting the rights and the privacy of the individual with the public interest in protecting the judicial system from violence, disruption or intimidation. That is why the bill confirms the general public right to enter court, and that is why there are safeguards on the exercise of the powers under this act, some of which I have mentioned, such as the power to require a person attending court to provide information or submit to a frisk search. Those powers can be exercised only where the security officer concerned
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .