Page 3442 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I referred in the in-principle debate to the question of people who are sentenced in the courts understanding what is happening to them. It seems to me that the problem is particularly severe when a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment. They need to be able to access a clear statement of what has happened to them, particularly when they have arrived at their place of imprisonment and they are wondering what is going on. They are in a state of some shock and they need to know what is going on. I think that very often the comments that a judge or magistrate makes in those circumstances are lost. They do not make any impact on a defendant. Having a written record of what has been said is, I think, extremely important.
This amendment deals only with people who are sent to prison rather than those who are given a suspended sentence or those who are given bonds or something of that kind. Those people would not be subject to this, but those who are to serve a term of imprisonment would be able to receive a copy of what has been said by the judge or magistrate. The written record might consist of no more than an extract from the court proceedings rather than some formal document that has been drawn up. Generally they are not very long documents, and I think it would be helpful if they were supplied to defendants in those circumstances.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (3.59): Madam Speaker, the Government will support this amendment. In the overall majority of cases where imprisonment is imposed a written decision is handed down. We are advised by the Magistrates Court that there may be up to 100 cases in a year in that court where a period of imprisonment - usually a short period because it is a comparatively minor matter - may be imposed without a formal written judgment being handed down, although, in every case, there will be reasons given from the bench. As Mr Humphries pointed out in his earlier remarks, a defendant, in the traumatic circumstances of a court appearance, may not fully comprehend what was said. Even if they hear it, they may have difficulty understanding it, or they may forget it in the subsequent trauma. Mr Humphries's proposal does not add an additional burden on the magistracy by requiring them to write a written judgment. It does impose an obligation to provide a transcript, and that is a reasonable thing in the circumstances. We think this amendment will be workable and we will support it.
Amendment agreed to.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.00): Madam Speaker, I move:
Page 9, line 9, proposed subsection 454(3), add at the end "unless the person has indicated that he or she proposes to plead guilty to the offence".
This is to add some words. This proposed subsection, as it stands now, requires that a court not order a pre-sentence report in respect of a person before the court finds that person guilty of an offence. That seems reasonable on its face, but there is a problem with its operation. Often people will come before the court having indicated that they intend to plead guilty of an offence. It may be the sort of case where a sentence of imprisonment is quite possible, even likely, and in those circumstances the court will need the benefit of a clear pre-sentence report to be able to decide what the situation is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .