Page 1538 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I suppose the difference is whether or not a person who decides to defend one of these types of notices, which are in fact summary offences, is in a context different from a person charged with a criminal offence. That is a question which was not properly answered by any of the witnesses who appeared before the committee and is a question on which the committee found some difficulty in arriving at unanimity. It is, in my view, one of the essential questions that need to be asked, and is one of the central points that need to be considered, particularly when the recommendation at paragraph 3.14 is being considered by the Attorney-General's Department and the Attorney-General. To refresh your memory, Madam Speaker, the recommendation at paragraph 3.14 is that:
the ACT Attorney-General's Department promptly conduct a review of all legislation with the view to recommending summary offences to which the infringement notice system could appropriately apply; and
when the review has been completed the Committee examine the proposed list of offences to be included in the Bill.
That is Mr Moore's Bill. Again I raise this question. What we are looking at are basically criminal offences identified by Mr Moore. As one of the witnesses before the committee said, if we are going to use the country police view of a good swift kick in the bottom for some offences, and that good swift kick in the bottom is an infringement notice as opposed to hauling somebody off to court, which is the general underlying philosophy, I believe, in what Mr Moore is proposing, should we then go on to say that, if they believe that they should not have got the good swift kick in the bottom and they wish to defend it and are subsequently found guilty of the offence, they then are guilty of a criminal offence? My view, on the basis of equity, is that if they are found guilty after defending an infringement notice they should not be found guilty of a criminal offence and therefore attain a criminal record.
There was also some debate within the committee over one other question in relation to infringement notices. It is the question dealt with in the recommendation in paragraph 4.18, which states:
the payment of previous infringement notices of a similar nature be included as part of antecedent reports for court cases.
While there is a range of offences to which we are proposing to have infringement notices possibly apply, only offences of a similar nature should be included in antecedent reports. In other words, if a person received an infringement notice for, say, abusive language, and that was some time ago, a report of payment of that fine should not be used in a court case which may involve another dissimilar offence. At the moment no reports such as this apply, I understand, and we are proposing a change in the way in which the antecedent reports are put together.
There are questions as to the record keeping necessary to enable the police and the court system to do this. That is why, in considering paragraphs 3.14 and 4.18 in particular, the committee went on to recommend that the question of the resource implications of this Bill be given appropriate examination by this Assembly should these matters come back before it, and certainly by the Attorney-General's Department prior to any formal recommendation being made to the Assembly to vary the current practice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .