Page 1463 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 17 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Committal Proceedings Delays
DR KINLOCH: My question is to the Attorney-General, Mr Collaery. Could you tell the Assembly the length of time a person may be detained in custody in Belconnen Remand Centre before the matters he or she is charged with are heard? Could you further tell the Assembly about an allegation from one detainee that he was held for several months without his charges being heard?
MR COLLAERY: I thank Dr Kinloch for the question. The answer is that that is a variable of the judicial process and is not a matter that the Executive, this Government, directly controls. Delays do occur. That often happens because either the prosecution or the defence is not ready to proceed. There are regular call-overs of unlisted matters in the court and I have taken an interest in those issues in recent times.
I am aware of a specific case which was the subject of a complaint to the Official Visitor, Bill Allcroft. The person concerned was charged with three separate serious offences between 17 April and 11 May 1990. I am advised that on 25 May - that must be 1990 - his solicitor asked the Magistrates Court for all the matters to be dealt with together, and asked for a hearing date in October 1990. I do not know the reason for this request. However, it appears that separate committals were held as he was committed to the Supreme Court on each charge between 6 and 21 November 1990.
Had it not been for the request that the committal proceedings be delayed, the matters would have been dealt with much more quickly by the Magistrates Court as it is the usual practice of that court to dispose of committals of persons in custody within three months, and in many cases within much shorter periods. The person was allocated, on 3 December 1990, a hearing date of 28 February 1991 for one of the offences. Given that the Supreme Court vacation covered the period from 17 December to 25 February, you will see, Mr Speaker, that this first matter was brought on in that context. The defence applied for the hearing date of 25 February to be vacated as the defence counsel was not ready to proceed. The prosecution was ready to proceed on that date, on my advice. The trial was relisted for 26 March 1991 but did not proceed on that date as a prosecution witness was unavailable. The matter has been relisted for May 1991.
I am sure all members would agree that this is a long time to be at the Belconnen Remand Centre. I think also that the above account puts the complaint in a very different light and is a matter, I believe, for discussion with defence counsel.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .