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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1892 ..

Amendment agreed to.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.08): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I move amendment No 7 circulated in my name [see schedule 2, part 1, at page 1973]. This amendment simply adds another class of persons to the class of persons that fall within the description of persons required to attend court, and who cannot as a result of that be excluded from the court by a security officer.

Clause 14 (1), as it currently stands, states:

If a person contravenes a requirement of a security officer under section 8 (Person may be required to state name and address etc), 9 (Searches) or 12 (Security officer may require thing that may hide firearms etc to be left), a security officer may require the person-

(a) not to enter the court premises or a part of the court premises; or

(b) to immediately leave the court premises or a part of the court premises.

Clause 14 (2) states:

However, if a person tells the security officer that the person is required to attend the court, the officer may only make the requirement at the court's leave or if the officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person is not required to attend the court.

We just had a debate about that. Clause 14 (3) states:

For this section, a person is required to attend a court if-

(a) the person is a lawyer who is to appear before the court; or

(b) the person is a party to a proceeding being heard, or about to be heard, by the court; or

(c) the person is required to attend the court by a summons, subpoena or other court process or order.

I am proposing that we add to the class of persons that fit the description of those required to attend the court, the person "accompanying a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c)".

It seems to us that if a lawyer and an associate attend the court for the purposes of representing someone, it is only appropriate and sensible that the associate fall within the description of a person who is required to attend the court.

More often than not, for reasons that I have never been entirely sure of or comfortable about, barristers, for instance, almost always attend with a junior. An instructing solicitor may attend with a clerk who is not a lawyer. A barrister or a lawyer may attend with an clerk or an articled clerk who has been very involved in the preparation of a case or a defence. That person does not fall within any of the three descriptions, yet their presence in the court is vital to the defence of somebody perhaps charged and

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