Page 449 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A provision of this kind was originally drafted by my colleague Mr Stefaniak for the old Bill. I have softened the provision slightly because I acknowledge that there are certain circumstances where a person ought to be entitled to some bail, even though they have breached once already the right to bail. For example, a person on a fairly serious offence, perhaps charged with assault or something of that kind, who is out on bail might be going to court for another offence such as speeding, or a road offence of some kind.
In those circumstances it is arguable, I would submit, that you ought to be able to let a person out on bail a second time, notwithstanding their earlier offence. In those circumstances, Madam Speaker, I think that we do provide some relief through the last few words in that amendment, where I talk about exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of bail. But the assumption being set up by this amendment is that a person who has once been granted bail and has committed another offence while out on bail ought not to be entitled to a second grant of bail.
That, I think, Madam Speaker, is a perfectly fair argument to make. The object of this Bill, I would argue, is not just to make sure that people are granted bail but to make sure that the community is protected. It sets out in clauses 22 and 23, in detail, the sorts of things the court must take into account, and the protection of the community flows through those provisions quite extensively. We are talking here about providing protection for, particularly, other witnesses, particularly perhaps in the case of, say, a domestic violence accused, the protection of victims, or potential victims, but also protection of the broader community.
A person who has once been granted bail by a court or a police officer and who then goes out and offends again ought not, it seems to me, have a prima facie case of entitlement to bail. That person has clearly, in some way, stretched their luck too far and ought not to be granted bail unless they can establish some exceptional circumstances for that to take place. I am not saying that they should never be granted bail, but the assumption ought to be that they should not be able to go back and commit a third offence out in the community in those circumstances. Madam Speaker, that is the reasoning behind the amendments to clause 5.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.27): Mr Humphries introduces these amendments and says that the bail legislation should not just protect the interests of the accused; it should protect the interests of the community, and the community ought to be concerned about persons who, while on bail, commit further offences. I can agree with all of what he says so far.
I would point out that the criteria for granting bail, in clause 22, list essentially three interests that are to be borne in mind by either the police officer, or the magistrate or judge: Firstly, the probability of a person appearing in court to answer their bail; secondly, the interests of the person charged, the interests of the accused; and, thirdly, the protection of the community. They are not in descending order of hierarchy; they are equal interests and they are each preserved.
The Bill goes on to set out a little bit more specifically each of those interests, and in relation to the protection of the community it sets out three subcriteria: Firstly, the protection of the community against interference with evidence or intimidation of witnesses, which obviously is a matter for the court; secondly, the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .