Page 1537 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In situations where repeat offences of the same type occur it is important for police officers to have the power to withdraw an infringement notice and proceed by summons. I believe that it is important for magistrates to have available to them information about similar and related offences which may have a direct bearing on the case proceeded with in court. Although I believe that these offences should not be regarded as criminal convictions, it is important that they be recognised as antecedents and taken into consideration as appropriate in determining sentence. It is equally important that all citizens have an awareness of their rights at all times. The two options previously described have specific ramifications. Where someone believes that they do not deserve a $100 on-the-spot fine they need to know that they can choose to defend their actions in court and be legally represented. The committee also believed that people should be able to recover their property when it has been confiscated by police, where that property is not illegal, illegally owned or stolen. Also, consideration needs to be given to the potential impact the introduction of the legislation would have on young people under 18 years of age. There was also some discussion of the impact the legislation would have on police resources, especially as it relates to the computerisation of records, again as Mr Humphries has described.
Madam Speaker, the Legal Affairs Committee has considered Mr Moore's Crimes (Amendment) Bill 1993 thoughtfully and carefully. It remains for the Assembly to further decide the future of the legislation. I am sure that my committee colleagues would be happy to consider the Bill more fully once additional information requested becomes available. I commend my colleague Mr Moore for presenting this Bill to the Assembly. Its contents have generated much discussion and debate which I believe still needs further consideration which will ensure justice for all. In conclusion, I would also like to thank Ms Judy Starcevich and Ms Karen Pearce for the secretarial support they have given the committee in assisting us with our task.
MR LAMONT (8.24): I rise also to support report No. 1 of the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs. Madam Speaker, most of the issues that have been raised have gone specifically to the recommendations and Mr Humphries has discussed some of the detail as to how we arrived at some of those outcomes. I suppose the essential question which we needed to address was whether or not it was appropriate, in terms of the rights of the citizenry of the ACT, to allow for a system to be introduced, as proposed by Mr Moore, that could, if accepted on the basis on which Mr Moore presented it, lead to either abuse of proper process as far as particular offences under the Crimes Act are concerned or abuses in relation to police conduct, which, thankfully, are very few. I emphasise that on only very few occasions has this Assembly had to deal with abuses of the law as far as the police are concerned. That was not a matter which occupied a great deal of the committee's time in coming to the conclusions that it did. Nevertheless, we were concerned about the rights of an individual.
One issue that I think needs to be addressed further if the Assembly adopts this report, and then the Government adopts it, is the question of whether a person who receives an infringement notice under these proposals and defends the notice and is subsequently found guilty is then guilty of a criminal offence. If they pay the fine they are not regarded as having committed a criminal offence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .