Page 445 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am also glad that the Magistrates Court sees the Bills as acceptable, giving the courts more specific powers while satisfying any concerns that may be held about protecting the community. This is one aspect of bail that causes a lot of worry in the wider community, particularly when there are spates of crime in the ACT such as the recent series of armed hold-ups. It must be stressed, as the Government brings such legislation into being, that the community must be reassured that its interests are being taken care of and that the courts and police will continue to have the power to refuse bail in cases where there is a threat to safety. It is also pleasing to note that the proposed legislation has been able to encompass some recognition of the recommendations of the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission.
By far the most important issue, I feel, is the recognition that surety bail is not available to all members of our society because of financial or family circumstances. Canberra, in particular, has a population which comes from disparate parts of Australia and, while an increasing number of people have relatives here, there is still a high proportion who cannot call on close relatives to assist with bail surety. Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.12), in reply: I was pleased to hear the two speeches in general support of the Bill. As Ms Szuty said, it is a very important part of the law reform process to put the law in simple language so that a person can understand it. I think what Ms Szuty said about the average person really not understanding what bail is about is quite right, and this is a process by which we make it simpler.
Mr Humphries gave a very helpful exposition. On looking at the introductory speech, if this is ever to be interpreted, his comments on the presumption are a finessing of what I said which I generally endorse. I have used, perhaps, the broader brush approach and said that this creates a presumption in favour of bail - a phrase repeated by Ms Szuty - and that is, indeed, generally true. What Mr Humphries said is that it is not so much a robust presumption in favour of bail as a presumption in favour of having your application for bail carefully considered, and that your liberty ought to be preserved unless there is a case against it; narrowing the issues on which the case against bail will be looked at; requiring a court or a decision maker to look at each stage in the process and to refuse bail only if there are grounds against it. So, it is a presumption in one sense, but a presumption, perhaps, more to have your case considered on specific criteria than a robust presumption that you must be let out the door.
That is, perhaps, important to get clear because members of the community could be alarmed if they were thinking that this was an open revolving door bail policy. It would be possible, perhaps, for people to try to stir up some nonsense about that, and the Opposition, quite responsibly, is not saying that. As I understand Mr Humphries's remarks, he is saying that it is a requirement that the merits of every person's case be looked at by a court, and that they can go at liberty unless a court or decision maker finds against them on one of the grounds of the Act. I think that may be the clearest simple-form explanation of what the Bill is doing.
Mr Humphries has circulated some amendments which he is foreshadowing. Given the complexity of this legislation and some of the points that he raised in his speech, I think I should refer to the issues that he has raised but has not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .