Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1889 ..
MR STEFANIAK: I move my amendments Nos 6 and 7 [see schedule 1, part 1, at page 1971]. Amendment No 6 removes a reference to clause 10. Amendment No 7 seeks to remove subclause (2), which also contains a reference to clause 10.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13.
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.54): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name [see schedule 2, part 1, at page 1973]. This amendment proposes to delete subclauses (2) and (3) and replace them with a new subclause (2). The purpose of this amendment is to limit to some degree what I regard as the extent of the power to eject people from the court. Clause 13 (1) provides:
If a security officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person entering or on court premises is behaving unlawfully or in any disorderly or menacing way, the officer may require the person not to enter, or to leave, the court premises.
Subclause (2) provides:
However, if the person tells the security officer that the person is required to attend the court, the officer may only make the requirement with the court's leave or if the officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person is not required to attend the court.
Subclause (3) provides or explains that a person is required to attend the court if the person is a lawyer, is a party to the proceedings, or is required to attend by summons, subpoena et cetera. I propose to replace subclause (2) in particular with a subclause which provides:
However, the security officer may make the requirement only with the leave of relevant court or if the person continues to behave unlawfully, or in a disorderly or menacing way, after being warned by the officer.
I am concerned about the basis on which a security officer might decide, for instance, that a lawyer should not attend at court. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which a security officer should be able to exercise his personal discretion as to whether or not a lawyer, for instance, should be required to leave the court.
The bill as presented by the government provides that it is up to the security officer to decide, for instance in this circumstance, that a lawyer is not required to attend the court. All I am suggesting is that that sort of discretion should be exercised by the court, not by the security officer. That is the purpose of my amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .