Page 840 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 13 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In particular, paragraph 6, which refers to the right of the victim to have explained to him or her the reasons that a prosecutor might enter a nolle prosequi - a withdrawal of the charges - is also very important. One of the most difficult things for victims to understand is why, when an apparently black and white case of a crime having been committed against them has been presented to a court, or at least to the prosecuting authorities, the prosecution should not be carried through to its logical conclusion of the victim being satisfied with a charge being found to be proved against the particular perpetrator. That is very difficult to understand and I think full reasons do need to be presented to victims in those circumstances to allow them to understand what is going on.
Paragraph 11 is also quite important in that the effects on victims of hearings - not only preliminary hearings or committal proceedings as referred to in the motion, but even hearings claims for criminal injuries compensation - can be quite devastating. That former client of mine to whom I referred earlier in fact withdrew her application for compensation because she did not feel that she could face up to the presentation before the officer of the court to explain the reasons that she deserved compensation. And that is quite sad.
I welcome very much the announcement by the Attorney-General that the maximum amount payable under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act will be increased from $20,000 to $50,000. Money obviously is only part of the answer, but for some victims it is a very important part of that answer, and I think that is a very important step towards strengthening our acknowledgment of the rights of victims which have for so long been overlooked or only partly acknowledged. I also commend VOCAL and its work. I think that it has, as the name no doubt implies, given voice to people who were previously silent in the process of criminal justice. The evidence I see of their good work makes me feel that the existence of such a body in the ACT is a good thing for those who are unfortunate enough to need its services.
I support the amendment moved by Mr Stefaniak. We do need to acknowledge that the Government has acted in this area and is progressing this matter. I think we can say, on a bipartisan basis, that it is good that there has been acknowledgment in this motion of the rights of victims, but it is also important to acknowledge that the Government has been active in this area. I hope, as Mr Stefaniak said, that a broader consensus will develop between the Government and the Opposition about the need to address this area, not just in terms of victims' rights but also in terms of reducing the number of victims that the ACT produces each year and, in particular, making sure that the police themselves have the powers to prevent those sorts of victims coming along. I support this motion. I think it is a valuable contribution and I am sure it will gain wide support in the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .