Page 3679 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in the Assembly last night. The Bill I am introducing today sits on much the same ground as the Bill that the Minister introduced last night in the Assembly, but it has a different and, I think, more far-reaching effect than the Bill which the Minister has presented.
This Bill governs a situation in which a person is apprehended pursuant to an alleged breach of a protection order made under section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act. That provides that a person who has been apprised of a protection order made against him or her - generally him - and who has breached that order has committed an offence. At present, because of the flaw in the law to which the Attorney drew our attention yesterday, such a person is automatically entitled to a grant of bail under the provisions of section 7 of the Bail Act which we passed earlier this year. I think, Madam Speaker, it would be true to say that all members in this place would agree that this situation is wholly unsatisfactory. The potential for violence in this set of circumstances is relatively high, and the community has to ensure that the best possible protection for those shielded by protection orders, particularly women, is maintained.
The Bail (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) - that is Mr Connolly's Bill - cures this problem by removing breaches of Domestic Violence Act orders from the operation of section 7 of the Bail Act. My Bill does go one step further than that, however. My Bill provides that when a person has been charged with an offence under section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act - that is, a breach of a protection order - that person is not entitled to receive bail until such time as he comes before a magistrate. Under the law as the Attorney has proposed it be amended, the person in that circumstance would be entitled to grant of bail in two circumstances. One is where he makes an application successfully to the police, and the second is where he makes an application successfully to a magistrate or judge. Madam Speaker, I would submit that my Bill is more appropriate in those circumstances and represents a toughening of the circumstances in which a person in that position might be granted bail.
There are many cases of continued breaches of bail conditions in these circumstances, I regret to say. I do not have figures on the circumstances of those breaches; but I suspect that it would be true that this particular area - breaches of domestic violence protection orders - is the most fruitful source of such breaches, and by some considerable margin. People behave, regrettably, in an irrational fashion in these circumstances, and the consequences are sometimes quite horrendous.
Members will recall that at this time two years ago domestic violence was very much on the public agenda through the operation of the Gallagher case. This was a situation where a person in an extreme situation was apprehended. That man was granted bail and subsequently went out and killed his wife, his two young daughters and himself. I hasten to mention that that case would not have been averted by the operation of the Bill I am bringing forward today, because that person was granted bail by the magistrate rather than by the police, and it is true to say that in these circumstances the police will generally be more reluctant to grant bail.
The point of this Bill is to send the unmistakable message to men - I say "men" because it is generally men in these circumstances - who choose to breach protection orders that they will almost invariably face the consequence of at least a night in the cells. Breaches of protection orders will have that result.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .