Page 798 - Week 03 - Thursday, 2 April 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
for some time, not only here in the ACT but right across Australia, these amendments will allow trials to continue to be heard without placing members of a jury, the court, the staff of the courts or the legal profession at unnecessary risk.
I am aware that there are a range of views on this, and I am aware that a range of views have been expressed. My discussions with Mr Hanson have indicated that the Canberra Liberals are taking a view which calls for a different resolution from the one in this bill. I can assure the Assembly that the government has been listening and has considered all of the views that have been expressed. It has weighed up all of the views. I do appreciate the tenor of the conversations that Mr Hanson and I have had on this matter, but justice delayed is justice denied. Delays in criminal proceedings have adverse effects and may combine with many other factors, such as the loss of evidence, to deny the accused a fair trial.
In addition, delays result in victims and witnesses waiting longer to give evidence, which can cause considerable distress or a reduction in their level of recall of particular events. Delayed trials can prolong the trauma of the survivors and make it substantially more difficult for them to be able to move on in their life. There are a range of people that we need to consider during these considerations. It is a very difficult time. It is essential for us to see their place, and the perspectives of all people, in this. Victims and survivors also have a right to a fair trial, and we need to make sure they are not traumatised by unnecessary delay.
It is important not only for the accused but for all people involved that a trial occur as quickly and fairly as possible. That is why we have weighed up all of the factors and taken them into consideration. This bill does that in a way that requires the court to consider all of the circumstances and determine matters in the interests of justice. That is, of course, what our judiciary is there for—to determine matters in the interests of justice. There is no vested interest in our judiciary; they are there to determine matters in the interests of justice while weighing up all of the considerations. The government has introduced this bill on that basis.
The amendments will also mean that accused people who might otherwise be remanded in custody, awaiting trial during the emergency declaration, will be able to have their matter heard and determined. For that reason, these amendments support a defendant’s right in criminal proceedings, particularly the guarantee in section 22(2)(c) of the Human Rights Act to be tried without unreasonable delay.
To protect the right to a fair trial, which is in section 21 of the Human Rights Act, and rights in criminal proceedings, in section 22, the amendments include an important safeguard to ensure that a judge-alone trial will proceed only if it is in the interests of justice. The test will be determined by the court, following the representations of the parties.
The amendments to the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act also provide the best opportunity for trials and hearings to continue and to be supported with the best evidence as we face this emergency. Currently, the court can create recordings of evidence, including cross-examination of witnesses in certain proceedings. These recordings can be presented in court later, reducing the need to recall vulnerable witnesses. The amendments in this bill extend those provisions to allow the court to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video