Page 3448 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, the Opposition also welcomes the recommendation to tighten the availability of bail to the extent that the needs of the victim are taken into account in that determination. The committee, in its recommendation, sets the following as a standard:
Where a victim demonstrates or perceives a need for protection from physical violence or harassment by an alleged offender he or she should be entitled to have that need placed before a court considering an application for bail.
Frankly, Madam Speaker, we have seen some shocking examples in the past of cases where alleged offenders have been granted bail when the court, frankly, has had no clear assurance that the victim would be free from harassment. There were some particularly unfortunate cases in the ACT in the last few years which I am sure come to all our minds. The court needs to be empowered to take into account the needs of a victim when determining that question of bail.
I also want to mention briefly reforms in the area of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. The recommendation to allow the court to make an interim award on a greater basis than has been the case up until now is a good one. From time to time victims of crime need financial assistance to pay for various expenses such as medical costs. To expect them to have to pay out large sums of money with no prospect of reimbursement for years to come is, frankly, impracticable in some cases.
I have some difficulty with the conduct of criminal injuries compensation cases at present. One particular case I brought to the attention of the Attorney concerned a person who was brought before the court in the ACT for a sexual offence. That person pleaded guilty to a minor or lesser range of offences with which he was charged. He was convicted and a fine was imposed. Subsequently a criminal injuries compensation claim was made by the victim in that case. In that claim the victim alleged the more serious offences which had not been proceeded with in the court. At the end of the day an award was made by the court which clearly took into account the more serious offences which in fact had not been proven in a court or admitted to by the defendant. A large sum of compensation was payable as a result of that determination and the defendant in that case felt some hurt about the matter. I have, for that reason, some difficulty with the blanket recommendation contained in the report that we should repeal sections 29A and 29B of the Act.
The case I cited was an example of where perhaps the ACT should not proceed to recover all or most of the amount which was awarded by the court in respect of that criminal injuries compensation claim. It is one thing to say that, but it is quite another to say that we should remove the right of the Territory to seek reimbursement from offenders in all cases for money which has been paid out of Consolidated Revenue for a person who has been injured in a particular case. Frankly, where an offender has the capacity to pay, he or she should be required to. Where an offender does not have the capacity to pay, he should be required to make some contribution at least to the Territory by way of reimbursement. Ruling out totally the option of seeking reimbursement is not sensible.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .