Page 3642 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The issues contained in the Bail (Amendment) Bill (No. 3), which is also before us today, were addressed by the Government's amendment Bill which was introduced and passed late last year. I felt then, and I feel now, that breaches of domestic violence protection orders are serious offences, and I supported the passage of the Government's amendment last year. Madam Speaker, I will not be supporting the amendments before us today, because of the fundamental principles involved. While we have a court system which determines guilt or innocence, I feel that we should also have a court system which can determine, with some degree of flexibility, whether the granting of bail is appropriate or not in any case before it.
MR MOORE (11.20): Madam Speaker, one of the things that we always have to take great care of in terms of legislation is to keep in mind the protection of the civil liberties of citizens. There is a major change, it seems to me, being attempted with this Bail (Amendment) Bill. A person charged with an offence is considered to be guilty if we accept what is suggested by the piece of legislation that has been put before us by Mr Humphries. Madam Speaker, it is always easy to argue things in black and white. I accept that in this situation the argument that I have just put is not in that category, is not completely black and white; but it leads to that kind of aspect with regard to people who are charged with an offence under the Domestic Violence Act.
One of the great difficulties for a court dealing with domestic violence, Madam Speaker, is to determine whether the person who is accused is guilty. There have been a number of notable cases recently where juries have found that the person accused is not guilty of an offence. I think, therefore, that the complicated issues that are being dealt with by the amendments here are issues that really need a great deal of community thought and consultation. I was pleased to hear the Minister indicate that the issues are currently before the Community Law Reform Committee, which so far has dealt very well with all the issues that it has presented to the Assembly. Madam Speaker, it seems to me to be appropriate that we wait and see what its report provides in regard to the Bill it is looking at. On the second issue, Madam Speaker, it having been considered by the Assembly previously, my position remains consistent. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I will be opposing both of these Bills at this time.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.22), in reply: The two Bills before the Assembly have been on the table for some time. Obviously, having had them on the table for some time has not changed people's minds about them, but it is worth reflecting on what they are all about. They have in common amendments to section 5 of the Bail Act which we passed last year - a very important piece of legislation - and the fact that they deal with people who have come to the attention of law enforcement authorities and the courts of the Territory on more than one occasion. In both cases we are talking about people who have, in a sense, reoffended in some way or other. I use that term very loosely. In the first case of a person who is charged with an offence and is given bail, and who allegedly commits a further offence and then comes before a court again seeking bail, that person has had, as it were, two encounters with the law. Rather than say that that person should not be given bail, and that is not what is being suggested here, the amendment I have put forward in the Bail (Amendment) Bill is that there should be only exceptional circumstances that would establish a right to grant bail. That is not to say that that person does not have a right to bail; it is just that they get bail only in circumstances which are exceptional.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .