Page 3645 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would respectfully suggest that we confuse the issue of innocence at the ultimate stage with the question of whether the community is entitled to some protection in the meantime before that question is established in a court of law and whether a person is therefore entitled to bail.
Mr Moore: The court already takes that into account.
MR HUMPHRIES: The court does take that into account; that is quite true, Mr Moore. But the court, with respect, also needs to take into account community standards. By passing the Bail Act last year we, as the interpreters of community standards, set what those community standards would be. I submit that we are perfectly entitled to come back to that question of community standards and decide what we feel the appropriate community standards are. I have no doubt, having spoken to members of the community, particularly people like the woman who protested outside the Supreme Court and others who have been involved in, especially, domestic violence matters, that the community expects a higher standard than we have set so far for the granting of bail, particularly for those who breach section 27 orders.
Madam Speaker, there is a question here on Bail (Amendment) Bill (No. 3) which causes me some concern. The Minister, Mr Connolly, said that the idea of denying bail to a person who already has been before a court and has had a section 27 order made against them may be okay. The Government may feel that this is a good idea, but it has referred this issue to the Community Law Reform Committee. What the Minister said was, "If the Community Law Reform Committee okays this idea, we will do it". Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the Community Law Reform Committee. I am sure that we all do. I am sure that we all feel that it plays a valuable role in helping us determine certain issues and giving us a clearer focus on what are important issues within the community and how we should interpret an appropriate and efficient response to those issues; but I must say that it concerns me that in a sense we might consider the Community Law Reform Committee to be the arbiter of these issues rather than the elected representatives of the people of the ACT.
The Government appeared not to express a concrete view about this issue. It merely said, "We will accept the advice of the Community Law Reform Committee". I assume that it will be somewhat more discriminating than that. It will actually consider the advice and decide whether it is justifiable in all the circumstances - - -
Mr Connolly: We will consider the outcome of this broad consultative process before taking such a drastic step.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is pleasing to hear, Minister; but the fact remains that we, to some extent, are resolving to delegate those matters to the Community Law Reform Committee, or, rather, we are accepting that the Government has made the decision to delegate that matter and that the Assembly's determination of this question, which predated, as I recall, the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .