Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2008 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 1 July 2008) . . Page.. 2528 ..
quite differently, and quite wrongfully differently, in terms of not being remanded in custody when they should be, and getting around the clear provision of section 9D of the Bail Act, is certainly something that I do not think this Assembly wants to see occur. Certainly, it is something that the police and victims do not want to see occur.
We expect to see young people treated in accordance with the law. They should be treated differently from adults in terms of their remand conditions—where they serve their remand. But I hope it is not anticipated that section 9D of the Bail Act will be got around by anything in this bill. I simply make that point in relation to these amendments which the minister is seeking to make.
Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, amendment 1.29, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1, amendments 1.30 to 1.33, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1, proposed new amendment 1.33A.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Minister for Health, Minister for Children and Young People, Minister for Disability and Community Services, Minister for Women) (6.25): I move amendment No 51 circulated in my name which inserts a new amendment 1.33A in schedule 1 [see schedule 2 at page 2549].
This amendment inserts a new definition of “young remandee” that mirrors the definition of “young offender”. A young remandee is a person under 18 who is on remand or a person who is over 18 but under 21 and is in remand for an alleged offence committed when they were under 18.
Amendment agreed to.
Proposed new amendment 1.33A, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1, amendments 1.34 to 1.81, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1, proposed new amendments 1.81A to 1.81D.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (6.27): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name which inserts new amendments 1.81A to 1.81D [see schedule 1 at page 2538]. I flagged this earlier, during my speech in the in-principle debate. Certainly, it has not gone without comment. The minimum age of criminal responsibility in the ACT is currently set at 10. This is our version of the longstanding common law doctrine of “doli incapax” or “incapacity to commit crime”.
For children accused of committing crimes between the ages of 10 and 14, doli incapax is only a rebuttable presumption, and the Director of Public Prosecutions can always present a case that the accused child fully understood the gravity, implications and wrongfulness of their actions and therefore should not be afforded the protection of the presumption.