Page 4121 - Week 14 - Thursday, 25 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
complex, but certainly the trauma that caused for the little girls and their families was very regrettable, not to mention the defendant and his family as well.
It is important that justice be speedily administered and a review of the court structure naturally looks both at that and at maximising the efficiency of the courts. It is interesting to note Mr Lindsay Curtis' comments in relation to a single court within the Territory, with provisions in relation to the sitting of certain judges when there are appeals against decisions by that court. That is probably one of the few things I have some difficulty with, having grown up, I suppose, with the system where you have very much a Magistrates Court and a Supreme Court.
Certainly I agree with a number of Mr Curtis' comments in relation to extending what jurisdiction the Magistrates Court has at present. We do not have an intermediate court in the Territory, and in my view nor should we. Certainly in terms of the number of courts we should have, a Magistrates Court and a Supreme Court are ample. The question is whether we go all the way as suggested by Mr Curtis in relation to a single court.
Certainly the concept of the Magistrates Court is less formal than that of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is very formal. Barristers are robed, whereas if you appear as a barrister in a Magistrates Court you are there in a suit. Magistrates in recent years have donned robes, but they do not wear wigs; whereas the judges of the Supreme Court are there in their full regalia - and there are certain reasons for this. The Supreme Court is the superior court of review; the Magistrates Court is the court of first contact for the vast majority of members of the public who come into contact, for whatever reason, with the courts. Certainly that is something that the legal profession will be looking at long and hard in relation to Mr Curtis' report. It is certainly something the Government also will naturally be looking at long and hard to see where we go in relation to a Supreme Court and a Magistrates Court, or one unified court.
It is a welcome discussion paper with the advent of self-government. There are a lot of recommendations here which I am sure would have bipartisan support. There are a number of controversial recommendations as well which will need careful study. The profession, I know, is certainly looking at this and will be giving it detailed study before it gives its views to the Attorney-General.
I commend the Attorney on commissioning this review and this discussion paper. It has provided a lot of food for thought and I certainly hope that whatever comes out of it and is put into practice will involve greater efficiencies in the justice system in Canberra - efficiencies that will benefit the people of the ACT and be much more cost-effective than the current way of running our justice system, which is very expensive indeed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .