Page 2217 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
-4
AT THE SAME TIME, THE BILL SAFEGUARDS THE INTERESTS OF THE ACCUSED PERSON BY ENSURING THAT TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE CAN ONLY TAKE PLACE AT THE REQUEST OF THE ACCUSED PERSON, AND THAT HE OR SHE CAN ONLY . MAKE SUCH A CHOICE AFTER RECEIVING PROFESSIONAL LEGAL ADVICE.
THE BILL ALSO PROTECTS THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM FROM
MISUSE BY A DEFENDANT WHO MIGHT TRY TO USE ITS
PROVISIONS TO DELAY HIS OR HER TRIAL AND TO
IiiCONVENIENCE THE COURT. AN ACCUSED PERSON WHO
DIES TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY MUST ELECT TO DO THAT BEFORE THE TRIAL DATE IS F1XED. THE ELECTION MAY BE WITHDRAWN BEFORE THE TRIAL COMMENCES, BUT ONCE WITHDRAWN NO FURTHER ELECTION MAY BE MADE.
THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THE BILL ENABLES THE SUPREME COURT, AT THE END OF THE TRIAL OF A PERSON FOR AN INDICTABLE CRIMINAL OFFENCE, TO DEAL WITH ANY SLfMMARY OFFENCES THAT ARE RELATED TO THE MIGTABLE OFFENCE. "SUMMARY OFFENCES" ARE LESS SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENCES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE DEALT WITH BY THE MAGISTRATES COURT.
THE PRESENT PROCEDURE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS FOR THE SUMMARY OFFENCES TO BE DELAYED IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT UN1m AFTER THE INDICTABLE OFFENCES ARE TRIED IN THE SUPREME COURT.
2217
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .