Page 4093 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One also has to look at the practical situation. One thing highlighted by the Attorney in his speech, on page 4, was that, under the old provisions, a child who entered a place of safety other than a youth refuge "had to be there for more than 12 hours before the person in charge was required to notify a police officer or the Youth Advocate". The Bill requires this notification to be made as soon as practicable and, in any case, within 12 hours of the child arriving. The idea of this, of course, as the Attorney stated, is to "ensure earlier notification by the Youth Advocate to parents, thus alleviating their concerns over the safety of their children".
Unfortunately, sometimes parents are not capable of being found. Unfortunately, a lot of these children come from broken homes and there simply are no parents who are readily contactable, for whatever reason. I think there might be great practical difficulties in meeting that requirement of "in any case, within 12 hours of the child arriving" in a place of safety.
Certainly, from my experience as both a defence counsel and a prosecutor in the Children's Court, both here and in New South Wales, I can see some problems arising there, because quite often the child effectively does not have any parents, and certainly none that can be contacted easily for that notification. That provision does, sort of, presuppose a normal parental situation at home, which often, unfortunately and tragically, is not the case. In fact, often it may be the reason for a child straying in the first place. So, there are problems there.
There are further problems in relation to this Act and the enforcement of orders under this Act. It is very difficult for a court to enforce any orders under this Act. There is currently a young girl of 15 who is laughing at the ACT system because the Supreme Court cannot enforce an order for a breach of recognisance. She had been involved, I understand - according to some colleagues of mine in the DPP - in an armed robbery, she is currently in New South Wales, and there is simply no way that they can bring her back under this Act to face the Supreme Court for a breach of recognisance. Funnily enough, had she committed an offence which was punishable by the Children's Court - an armed robbery is not - then for that breach of recognisance of a Children's Court order she could be brought back.
There is another anomaly which the Attorney-General and the government law officers might like to look at. It seems ridiculous that, when someone charged with an offence before the Supreme Court is in breach of a recognisance made by the Children's Court, there is nothing that the Supreme Court can do to enforce the breach of that bond. That makes a mockery of the law.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .