Page 3405 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 25 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Members will recall the very considerable community concern that has been expressed in the past few months about questions relating to bail. Earlier this year, one woman in particular who stands out staged a protest for several days outside the Supreme Court. She camped outside the court to make a protest about a particular issue with which she was involved. Her concern - and I think she spoke with not only me but a number of members of this Assembly - was the position of the courts on the granting of bail for a second offence while a person was out on bail on a first offence. I do not wish to delve into the circumstances of that case. I say only that other cases of that kind have given rise to similar concerns, and there are other instances of community reaction to a court order granting bail.
I spoke to the police about the circumstances in which bail is granted, and I was told of a particular case they were concerned about where an offender had been granted a third set of bail, after an initial offence, and police were quite sure that that person would appear again for a further breach of bail. I think it is true to say that bail is not a right; it is a privilege which is granted in certain circumstances where a court is satisfied that a person is entitled to his liberty, notwithstanding that he has been charged with a particular offence. The community has, I submit, every right to regulate the circumstances in which that privilege is granted.
This measure is designed both to assess properly the worthiness of an applicant before a court to receive bail and to protect the legitimate interests of the community. Those interests, of course, are primarily interests of safety, not only for witnesses in particular proceedings but also for victims. Obviously, matters involving sexual molestation and sexual offences have a very high profile in this area. The Bill amends section 5 of the Bail Act, which we put into law only early this year.
Mr Connolly: And in which we tried the same amendment.
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed. The circumstances in which a person is given bail on a first offence and then comes before the court for a second offence while on bail are dealt with in section 5 of that Act. Where this occurs and the person appears before the court on a second bail application, this Bill provides that bail will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. It still means, I emphasise, that bail is possible. Bail will be granted if the court feels that that is the most appropriate course of action in the circumstances. For example, trivial second offences or very minor breaches of bail conditions would, in the circumstances of this amendment, still be overlooked by the court and a second grant of bail would still be possible.
The onus, in a sense, shifts onto the accused to satisfy the court that a second grant of bail is warranted in the circumstances, notwithstanding the person's apparent unworthiness to receive that grant. This is a tightening of the protection that bail affords both to particular people and to the community generally. This is because the first objective of the criminal justice system is not, I submit, the social rehabilitation of offenders; it is rather the protection of the community and the defence of victims. That means victims both before and after offences are committed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .