Page 3638 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
community against interference with evidence or intimidation of witnesses; the likelihood of a person harassing other persons; and, thirdly, the one that is relevant here, the likelihood of a person committing any offence, not just, as in New South Wales, a sexual or violent offence but any offence at all, while released on bail.
The alleged problem that Mr Humphries was referring to was the anecdotal evidence we hear about a person who is charged with housebreaking offences and is bailed and who goes out and commits further housebreaking offences and again gets bail. It has been the clear intention of this Assembly that the fact that you have committed offences while on bail is taken into account against you in your application for bail. It was the clear intention of this Assembly in passing that original Bail Act that we are to be much tougher than New South Wales in that you look at the likelihood of any reoffending, not just reoffending on a violent or sexual offence matter.
Madam Speaker, I am certainly aware, as no doubt Mr Humphries is, because no doubt it was what prompted him to move this amendment, that there is an anecdotal view within the police force that there is a vast raft of people who are committing offences while on bail and that the courts are too lenient in granting bail. I have asked the Federal Police to keep a very close watch on this and to advise me of situations where they believe that bail has been inappropriately granted. I have indicated to the police and to the Director of Public Prosecutions that in appropriate cases, if there is a view that the ACT courts are being too lenient and are not acting on the clear intention of this Assembly in passing the Bail Act - that is, taking into account reoffending in every case - if there is a belief that the ACT courts are acting perhaps more along the lines of New South Wales where you look at the likelihood of reoffending only if it is a sexual or violent offence matter, I would be happy to have those matters appealed.
If grants of bail are being made in the Magistrates Court which seem to be inappropriate, I would be happy to appeal those matters to the Supreme Court and read into the court the Hansard report of what was said in the Assembly. The courts, in construing the Bail Act, are, of course, entitled to look at the debates. It was made very clear in the debates in this place that our intention was to be more rigorous than New South Wales. Our intention was that reoffending while on bail is a relevant factor, and the likelihood of reoffending is relevant to any offence, not just, as in New South Wales, to sexual offences or violent offences.
Given that our legislation is more rigorous, and given, Madam Speaker, that we have not yet had a situation arise where we have had a case which appears to be dramatically too lenient and we have appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, I think Mr Humphries's amendment should be opposed for the same reasons that we gave earlier. It is a dangerous thing to remove a presumption. At the end of the day the person who is charged with committing an offence while on bail, having been charged with committing previous offences, still has not been convicted of any offence. A person is entitled to be presumed to be innocent until they are found guilty. Once you tamper with that and start having presumptions against bail you are moving down very shaky paths indeed. We have these basic presumptions in our legal system which go back centuries, and I would suggest to any members that before you interfere with those you need to have very strong grounds for doing so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .