Page 563 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
serious harm on a person, and they die as a consequence of those injuries, not to be charged with murder? I think that is the question that those opposite and those on the crossbench need to answer. In what circumstances is it unreasonable for the person not to be charged with murder? That is the matter that I am most concerned about.
This change to the law has not been developed in response to some knee-jerk political point of advantage. Anyone who knows this government and knows this government’s record would know that we do not engage in law and order auctions. We do not engage in them and we have not engaged in them. But there is a problem with the law of murder in the ACT. There has not been a conviction for murder in over a decade in the ACT. The government believes that that is a cause of concern in the community.
The government believes that that is undermining confidence in our criminal justice system. The government does not accept the usual arguments that come from those who are interested in maintaining the status quo—that it is the police’s fault or the DPP’s fault. That is the argument of parties who are not interested in looking at the law itself and who are seeking to blame others. The government’s view is that the law itself needs updating and modernising and, in particular, it needs to come in line with the community standard that is in place in every other state and territory in the country.
I would like, for the benefit of those members who have not seen it, to just deal with some matters which I have outlined in my response to the scrutiny of bills committee and their commentary on this bill, and I thank the committee for their comments. The first point I make is that it would appear that the committee contends that an intention to cause permanent injury to health is not sufficiently serious to warrant a charge of murder should the victim die from the injury.
The government’s position is that there are many situations where an intention to cause permanent injury to health that results in death would not only warrant a charge of murder but would also give rise to an expectation in the community that a charge of murder would apply. I think this is the point I was trying to make earlier. It is that issue of community expectation that I think members in this place need to have more regard for, because that is one of the key issues which is causing concern for me and for the government.
It is also worth highlighting, as I have earlier, that whilst it is true that other jurisdictions in Australia do not have an offence that is identical in every way to the one proposed by the bill, each jurisdiction apart from the ACT has an offence of constructive murder. While the definitions of harm that make up these offences may differ in minor ways, the nature of the offences is the same, with each of these jurisdictions having a wide range of violent behaviours causing death that fall under the offence of murder. I think members need to think about that.
All other Australian jurisdictions capture a broad range of violent behaviour causing death that is captured by the offence of murder. Why not here in the ACT? Is our community expectation any different about that sort of behaviour? Do we think it is acceptable that people who cause violent injury to someone, and that person dies, should not be charged with murder? Or would the community expectation be that they
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .