Page 4312 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Collaery: Subject to provocation.
MR STEFANIAK: Subject to provocation, Bernard? I see. But I think perhaps people are missing the point. Firstly, Mr Connolly seemed to be indicating that the parent, not the child, would be prosecuted. Far from it; the child would be as well, but on the rare occasions - I stress that they have been rare in the past, nevertheless they were there - when the court is so concerned about the role of the parent in habitually neglecting to exercise due supervision, care or control of the child, thereby contributing to the commission of that offence. If that occurs, under section 64 some action could be taken. That is all this does. I expect that it would be used very rarely.
I am concerned a bit at some of Mr Collaery's comments. He does not show very much faith in the people who administer our criminal justice system by assuming, as do some people who criticise some of these measures, that they are blind automatons who cannot exercise a discretion or commonsense. Far from it; the people who work in our jurisdiction, from the magistrates down, are called upon to exercise discretion and commonsense every day of the week and, invariably, in most instances do so. This would certainly be a case in point in which that discretion would have to be exercised. It was exercised under the old section 64 in the past by the magistracy, and I have no reason to doubt that it would be again.
Again, this proposed new clause was put before this Assembly by me because of concerns expressed by professionals in the system - practitioners and, again, the court staff. In my time in practice, concerns were expressed on occasions in certain individual cases by magistrates. These concerns have been expressed since 1986 when they did not have this power which this proposed new clause would give to them.
I think it is important, especially when we are talking about juveniles, that the parents' role is looked at. Parents do have a responsibility towards ensuring that they adequately care for their children. It is not a case, as Mr Collaery says, of any attempt to put, or likelihood of putting, child against parent. Far from it, because when you get to this stage there is no supervision at all being exercised by the parents. Basically, the parents in these instances could not care less. The child is running wild, and the situation would have got to such an extreme that the court would deem it fit to step in and punish the parent for what is basically atrocious conduct by that parent. So, I think Mr Collaery and Mr Connolly are somewhat off in their concerns in relation to this. Nevertheless, I hear what they say.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .