Page 4256 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The subsections that the proposed amendment would remove from the Act, in my view, already cover a wide range of methods of dealing with children who, for whatever reason, have not paid their fines. It may be worthwhile letting the record show some of the options available to the courts. Primarily, it says that where a child fails to comply with an order imposing a fine, the court may make an order either remitting the fine or reducing the amount of the fine; and an order allowing time or further time for the repayment of the fine.
Then it goes on to refer to an order specified in section 47, which is an order reprimanding the child, a conditional discharge order, and an order imposing a penalty provided by law with respect to the offence - whatever that may mean; I am not all that sure. Then it goes into the area of any other order that the court is empowered to make with respect to that offence, a probation order or an attendance centre order.
In my opinion, a probation order is a far more appropriate method of dealing with children who have crossed swords with the law and lost and have had a fine imposed upon them. The imprisonment option is still there, I believe, within section 54 of the Act. Eventually, an order committing a child to an institution or a State institution for a period not exceeding 30 days may well be entered into if the court is satisfied that the failure of the child - by that I assume they mean a person around the age level of 17 years or so - to comply with the order imposing the fines was, in the circumstances, unreasonable.
So, that imprisonment option is still there for the courts to impose if they find that they are dealing with someone who is simply refusing to pay the fine and thumbing their nose at the court. The final ability to put someone into a detention centre is still there.
The amendment proposed by Mr Stefaniak, from my understanding of the way it would work, would mean that the court has no option but to make an order committing the child to an institution for a period not exceeding 40 days. That, to my way of thinking, is an inappropriate way of examining the failure by a child to pay a fine.
I agree with the comments that have been made by the Attorney. I know that Mr Stefaniak is a humane and just man, and is in no way trying to lock up children and throw away the key, as was suggested by the Attorney; but I do not believe that this is the appropriate method of dealing with this problem. I do not support the proposed amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .