Page 5200 - Week 16 - Thursday, 28 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: That may be the case, Mr Stefaniak; but some people, the innocent accused, often do not. Where a court or an authorised police officer refuses bail or imposes conditions on bail, each must record reasons for doing so.
Part VI of the Bill sets out comprehensive review provisions. In general, any bail decision may be reviewed on its merits and a substitute order made, by either the same court or, except in the case of the Supreme Court, a higher court. Decisions of authorised officers may be reviewed by a magistrate.
Sometimes an accused person stays in custody because a court has imposed a condition which he or she cannot satisfy. The Bill therefore casts a duty on the officer in charge of the remand centre to notify the court if this happens. The court may then, of its own motion or on application, review the conditions and change them, grant unconditional bail or continue to refuse bail.
Under the present law, many are released on bail by a senior police officer. I see no reason for this to change. It is efficient and convenient for all concerned and frees the court from having to consider routine bail applications for minor offences. But the present law is deficient in not providing the police with full and clear guidance on the criteria for granting bail in all cases. The Bill remedies this.
For the first time the criteria for granting bail and permissible conditions which may be attached to bail are set out in ACT legislation. These, of course, apply equally to a court. But the Bill also sets out in some detail the procedures which an authorised officer - which means, in effect, a senior police officer at the relevant station - must follow when granting bail.
This Bill is the most significant criminal law measure yet put before this Assembly. It takes hold of difficult and abstruse law which directly affects the whole community, and remoulds it into a clearer and more easily accessible whole. I believe that it effectively balances the interests of both the accused and the community. It makes extensive provision to ensure that accused persons get all the information they need about bail and that bail decisions are based on information relevant to the underlying objective of ensuring that accused persons stand trial.
I commend the Bill to members of the Assembly and present the explanatory memorandum for the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Stefaniak) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .