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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (1 May) . . Page.. 1281 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I imagine they would relate to a person's financial security and a range of other issues that are currently taken into account by the court in decisions about whether or not to grant bail under the existing arrangements.

The discretion to grant bail will be retained. The onus is being shifted from the prosecutor, from the state, to the applicant in that narrow classification of cases-namely, where a person is already on bail for a serious offence and appears again charged with a further serious offence. The definition of "serious offence" is an offence that carries a potential prison term of more than five years. So we are talking about significant offences.

I think the bottom line is that if the bill is passed the Assembly is telling the courts that, for this limited category of alleged offenders, the community expects the courts to apply more rigorous criteria when assessing a bail application. The first time around, a person charged with a serious offence does have the benefit of the existing provisions. The court must take a whole range of criteria into account in determining whether or not to grant bail. What the legislature is saying is that the second time around the court should apply a separate set of criteria; that the second time around the onus should be reversed.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I refer briefly to the work the Law Reform Commission has done on this issue. The Law Reform Commission received a reference from the government in 1997 to give some consideration to the issue of bail and proposals for legislative reform. The Law Reform Commission, as a result of that reference, did commence a round of consultations. It formed a working group which comprised representatives of the Magistrates Court, the Supreme Court, the Legal Aid Office, the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It is perhaps relevant for me to note that in the documentation that I have in relation to this report the members of the criminal law consultative committee that the Law Reform Commission developed as a result of that reference comprised Justice Ken Crispin, who chairs the commission; Ron Cahill, the Chief Magistrate; Richard Refshauge, the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions; Grant Brady from the Law Society of the ACT; John Seymour from the ANU; Professor David Hambly from the ANU; Chris Staniforth, the Director of the Legal Aid Office; Ben Salmon from the Bar Association; Commander Alan Castles from the AFP; and James Ryan, the Director of ACT Corrective Services. One assumes that it was as a result of the consultations undertaken with that particular group that the Law Reform Commission recommended a provision of the nature that is included in this bill.

I wonder about the nature of the work the consultative committee did on this. I did note this morning-and this is one of the things that confuse me about public debates on these sorts of issues-a comment from the current president of the Law Society of the ACT that he had some concerns about this bill. But, as I understand it, the Law Society was a party to the recommendation that the government introduce provisions of this sort. So I am not quite sure exactly what it was that Chris Chenoweth was saying as president of the Law Society. But it appears, and perhaps one can assume, that his predecessor in the position did not share the views that the Law Society is now apparently espousing.

It is one of the difficulties in relation to a debate such as this, when we all seek to consult and take some counsel-

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