Page 1672 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Emergency Services) (10.50): This amendment provides for summary disposal of cases at the prosecutor’s election. In particular, the provision provides that the DPP must make an election within 21 days.
I believe this raises some questions. Whilst not wanting to revisit the issue in principle about whether or not this is a desirable approach—I have already placed on the record the government’s serious concerns with the approach that has been proposed—I want to deal with the mechanics of this particular clause.
I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions has expressed reservations about the 21-day time period for him or his office to make an election. He has, I am advised, suggested a 42-day period instead. I am further advised that he has discussed this proposed change with the bar and other practitioners and has written to the opposition about the issue.
The director considers that in most cases he will be able to exercise his election within the proposed 21 days. However, he also believes that 21 days is too restrictive. For example, in some cases additional time may be required for the DPP to assess the material provided by the police in order to make an election—most importantly the statement of facts and criminal history. Many cases will clearly fall on one side of the line or another and a decision will be able to be made on the available material, but in some cases the DPP may want to make further inquiries of the police before committing to an election. The government’s concern, based on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, is that in these circumstances 21 days may not allow sufficient time.
This is an issue that Mrs Dunne needs to address in dealing with this clause. The government places on the record its concern that the time limit proposed may be insufficient in some circumstances to allow the DPP to make an informed election.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.53): This is the most substantive amendment today, and the Greens will be supporting it. The amendment creates the framework to determine which court will hear matters which carry a maximum potential sentence of between three and five years. Under the framework, the Director of Public Prosecutions will make the decision. This means that there will be no automatic referral of all matters in the three to five-year bracket to the Magistrates Court. This automatic referral was the model proposed by the government. Both the Greens and the Liberals indicated in the last sitting that we preferred a more refined approach such as that which has been put forward by Mrs Dunne today.
I will not go over those reasons for the more refined approach again as I did so in my comments at the in-principle stage. It is sufficient, however, to say that the amendment offers an approach that will ensure that serious cases that warrant a jury trial will have access to one. That is a well-established legal right, and I am pleased we have been able to work with the Canberra Liberals to guarantee it is respected in the ACT statute book and in our courts.
The Greens believe the amendment strikes the right balance between two competing rights: firstly, the right to be tried without unreasonable delay and, secondly, the right
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video