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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (1 May) . . Page.. 1287 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We have been given only anecdotal evidence that there is a problem with repeat offenders whose repetitions have been carried out while they were on bail. There are no statistics to see whether there has been an increase in this happening or whether there is a decrease or to see anything about it. The main evidence is that when particular people who had been found guilty of burglary were locked up last year there was a sharp reduction in the number of burglaries. This indicates that a small number of people-the police estimate 10 to 12-are responsible for 40 to 50 per cent of the burglaries in the ACT.

The changes in the bill will reduce the importance of a balanced assessment of all the factors relevant to the decision to deprive an untried person of their liberty on the basis only that they have been accused of two crimes where the maximum penalty would be five years imprisonment or more. Two accusations of stealing new mountain bikes, for instance, and you are not entitled to the full consideration of all the factors and you no longer have an entitlement to bail. Instead, there will be a presumption against bail for you.

There is a strong feeling in the community about people who have been proven to have offended several times while they were on bail for previous offences which it turned out later they had committed. There are strong feelings about repeat burglaries, and the Greens, as I said, do understand this. But this is not an appropriate remedy when we are talking about people who must be presumed innocent.

It is of concern to me that we are getting a lot of support from people in the legal sector for the position we are taking on this. I listened to Mr Stanhope's concern about that as well. I am also particularly concerned about the use of anecdotal evidence to support this proposal. It is not a thorough enough analysis that we have been presented with here. I have received contrary anecdotal evidence from people working in the profession about how easy it is to get bail. There is probably anecdotal evidence to support either position. The fundamental issue we have to deal with here is the presumption of innocence.

Just quickly, I would like to also look at proposed new section 9A (2), which states that the court or an authorised officer must not grant bail unless special or exceptional circumstances justify it. Mr Stanhope mentioned this. What circumstances are they? Mr Stanhope said he would be interested to see. I am sorry, I do not think that is good enough. We do not just say, "We will see what that means." We are creating law in this place, and it is very concerning that the definition of this is not spelt out.

My office was told that in the courts or in other places where special or exceptional circumstances must be argued it would be enough to have a good network of support among family and friends. If this means that it would not have a great effect in practice-I have heard the argument that I should not be worried, because it will be meaningless in practice-then why are we doing it? It is being done, apparently, to send a message to the community that we are being tough on law and order. But we are being pretty damn soft on democracy and fundamental principles of protection for people involved in the criminal justice system.

If you look at the next proposed new subsection, you will see that it qualifies the acceptance of these special and exceptional circumstances by saying that, even if there are just circumstances, the court or officer must refuse bail if satisfied that refusal is

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