Page 2870 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
proceedings in the Magistrates Court to the Supreme Court. There are not all that many circumstances where this sort of proceeding would be necessary in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would not often hear evidence from children in these sorts of matters. They would generally be heard in the Magistrates Court. But there are circumstances, perhaps on appeals, where there would need to be some capacity in the Supreme Court to hear that evidence and it is appropriate for it to be extended to that place. I also indicate that it is appropriate that there remain a sunset clause until the report of the Law Reform Commission is seen.
I have only two questions which I would ask the Attorney to take on notice and perhaps answer when he comes to sum up in this debate. I was a little bit puzzled by clause 10 of the Bill. I do not understand why it should be that an order should not lapse when a child attains the age of 18 years. I can understand protection of this kind accruing to a child of, say, 10 years of age; but I cannot understand why that same protection should accrue to a person of 18 years. I remind you, Mr Speaker, that this legislation does, to some small extent, compromise the rights of the accused. So, I have to ask why it is that that protection should be extended to a person of 18 years or older.
This legislation was considered by the Alliance Government and would have been brought forward by the Alliance Government before now. I notice that the Attorney says that the legislation has been reviewed and endorsed, and that is very appropriate. I assume that it is in exactly the same terms as put forward by the Alliance. If that is not the case, I would be happy to hear from him in what ways the legislation is different.
MR COLLAERY (11.52), by leave: I thank members. Mr Speaker, I neglected to turn my pages and address the civil liberties aspect of this matter. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does give an accused the right to confront an accuser, and it gives the right, in effect, of active cross-examination. So, again, there is a fine balance to be achieved in legislation of this nature.
The impact of video on a jury can be quite astounding. I witnessed a film of a live interview in Tasmania where they have introduced video filming of witnesses. In this case it was a murder suspect. She was handed back the carving knife with which she had just stabbed her partner and the video zoomed onto the carving knife and the blood which was still on the knife and her hands. But the real issue before the jury dealt with provocation and the rest. A video close-up, in the view of the Tasmanian Law Society, if I recall correctly, was inappropriate. As I understand it, and the Attorney will confirm in due course in this house, there will be no zoom capacity for the police video rooms to be established in the Territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .