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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1895 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

basis-certainly on a daily basis when I was a prosecutor-over a 15-year period, I know that there are not too many occasions on which people are required to leave.

All of the people that you mention come to court. There is absolutely no drama with this, and no-one would anticipate that a person of the sort that was mentioned would put themselves into a position where a court, under what is now clause 13, would require them to leave. Further, I am advised by my departmental officers that the list is not exclusive.

I direct members' attention to subclause 3 (c), which states:

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

There is not drama with this. There is absolutely no problem with the court itself ordering that such a person needs to attend court. Indeed, Ms Tucker, courts will often direct or order a party to bring someone to court. They will direct someone from an agency like the Rape Crisis Centre or the Drug Referral and Information Centre to come to court to assist. In that instance they would fall within this.

I think the dangers of adopting Mr Stanhope's amendment far exceed any potential difficulties. I think there is already provision to have included in the definition people such as those he is concerned about. Again, I remind Mr Stanhope of my little note from the department saying, "The list is not exclusive."

I think there are some big potential problems in the way he has drafted his subclause. Perhaps he could come back with something that does that better and which allays the fears we have of, as I said, members of the Rebels motorcycle gang accompanying a defendant, as specified in paragraph (b). You could have some huge problems if that were the case. This would present very real dangers.

Mr Stanhope's amendment, as it stands, should not be acceded to. If he can think of something better later on, we could always revisit it. But, firstly, I do not think this is a practical problem; and, secondly, I think there would be some very real dangers if we allowed this amendment to get up in this form.

MS TUCKER: (5.20) I would like to respond to what Mr Stefaniak has just said. Clause 14 (2) states:

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) states:

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

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

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