Page 3643 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The second case relates to a person who is alleged to have breached a section 27 domestic violence order. That person obviously has appeared before a court once before, because they had to have the order made against them in the first place. Obviously, a court has some apprehension that there is a danger of some breach of the peace, some threat of violence. The court makes an order under section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act. That person goes away and then again comes to the attention of the police on the basis that they are alleged to have committed an offence against that order. Obviously, we are talking about people who often are in very emotional circumstances; but a person in that position is then before a court or before a senior police officer seeking to be bailed, having been charged with committing an offence against an order for which he has already appeared before a court. In those circumstances, again the person has twice come before the courts and the law.
I think, Madam Speaker, that this debate raises an important issue about the balance to be struck in our community between protection of civil liberties and the need for a stronger response to a serious problem in respect of crime in the community. Debates about crime, crime statistics and the general trends that are emerging with respect to crime have taken place before and will take place again, no doubt; but, Madam Speaker, it is undeniable that there is a problem with escalating levels of crime in certain categories.
Sexual offences are one such category. I acknowledge that undoubtedly there is greater reporting of sexual offences these days; but the underlying trend suggests to me that there is a problem overall with rising crime in these categories and we should not assume that people, particularly in categories relating to personal relationships or sexual offences, are going to be behaving rationally. That is why in Bail (Amendment) Bill (No. 3) there is an onus placed on the court not to grant bail in respect of a breach of a domestic violence order, because of the high potential in those circumstances for someone to reoffend. A person in a sense already has twice come to the attention of the law for acts that might be construed as a threat to another person - generally a female partner, a spouse, or a wife. That person has not been proved in either case to have committed certain offences; that is true. But there is the strong suggestion that, having twice come to the attention of the authorities, there is a real potential that there is some threat of physical harm.
I do not need to quote to the Assembly cases in the last few years of extremely serious crimes - referring here to everything from multiple murder down - that have occurred when courts have dealt, arguably, with excessive leniency with people who came before them for domestic violence problems. I am thinking particularly of that horrendous case in Richardson when I think four people died as a result of a person's extremely emotional state. I am anxious to respond to what I see as a concern in the community about the ease with which such people obtain their liberty. I am concerned that, in the balance between civil liberties and the protection of the community, we ought in the present circumstances to be erring on the side of protection of the community and a stronger response to crimes of this kind.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .