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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4754 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

not a question of popular politics. Quite frankly, I resent that. I am a lawyer as much as I am a politician. I have been involved in this system.

I have seen victims go to court expecting to see justice done, and to be utterly appalled by what happens. They feel that once they get there it is all in favour of the criminal, that the system is just honed in on the criminal and forgets the victim. Even with improvements in terms of victims' rights, there is still a lot more work that needs to be done there. (Extension of time granted.) Because the system is so defendant eccentric, the victims feel completely let down by it. They go into court and they except something different.

Mr Pratt is quite right about what he describes in relation to how police feel, and how depressing it is for police who, for perhaps perverse, silly reasons, fully expect a jury to say not guilty. That is the system: innocent until proven guilty; you win some, you lose some. But what is utterly depressing for both police and victims is a long, tortuous case with all the necessary cross-examination-and it is necessary in our legal system; it has to be fair-and, when at the end of the day the criminal is convicted, nothing happens. The criminal is released a bond or whatever. Justice is actually not seen to be done.

That does not really help the criminals either, because often it just encourages them to think, "Nothing is going to happen to me; I'll just keep doing it."So you are actually helping criminals by being soft on crime and not wanting to go down the path of proper sentencing.

I really think you do not know much of what you are doing. In terms of criminologists, we can all quote academic experts. I wonder how many have actually practised in the system and how many actually bring any real practical knowledge to it. I also read what the experts say. I have met quite a few. You can take a lot of it with a grain of salt. You have to back to commonsense. You have to go back to a system that, at the end of the day, has four principles of sentencing.

Mr Speaker, I will not use up my full time. I have taken copious notes relating to some the inane comments made by members who have spoken against this bill. I am not going to bother with that. I merely go back to reiterating the actual principles of sentencing, which people seem to have forgotten. They are deterrence, punishment, retribution and rehabilitation. All are equally important.

I wish to make a couple more points. The penalties in relation to car jacking have been lifted from the New South Wales legislation. In relation to the Chief Minister's hysteria about traps, you will find that the section I actually insert is a 1974 New South Wales one. I think you are off on a real tangent there, as usual, in relation to this matter.

Police have told me there is just no way in the world they can actually ping someone for a car jacking, as opposed to New South Wales where the legislation covers that offence. The reason we have those other three offences in there in relation to police is exemplified by what a very good ex-magistrate in this territory, Kevin Townley Dobson, who sadly passed away a few months ago, used to say. He said that police are not blue punching bags, when people were before him in relation to assaulting police.

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