Page 1584 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have to ask ourselves whether that does not apply equally or even more so to children. If it does, is there an argument for saying that children who are defendants are no less likely to need to be put in an environment where they feel that compulsion which applies to many adults because of the environment in which they are seated? That is an issue I raise which I do not think is yet fully resolved. The practitioners who were interviewed in the Law Reform Commission study appeared to take the view, according to the Attorney's speech, that this was an appropriate process and did not result in injustice in most cases. The children who were part of the process also seemed to believe that it was an appropriate process and that it made it easier for them to give the evidence. But I have no doubt that there would be some people in some circumstances who would find that the experience produced other than a good result. If that is the case we need to be considering ways of refining this legislation to ensure that that does not happen more often than it needs to.
There are exceptions in this Act to the assumption that closed-circuit television will always be used in court proceedings where children are involved. One of those exceptions is where a child chooses otherwise than to use the closed-circuit television. Another exception is where the court thinks it would not be in the interests of justice - I think that is the phrase used - for that to happen. So there are some mechanisms there to deal with the problem; but I have a doubt in my mind about whether there is enough information available through the process we have in place here to allow a judge or a magistrate to be able to make that decision, sometimes, in fact most times, before the child begins to give evidence. Mr Deputy Speaker, there is some work yet to be done, I think, before we can be totally confident that this is wholly beneficial to the interests of the court process and to the pursuit of justice.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Attorney has indicated that the Government proposes to accept, for the most part, the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. I also have the concern that Ms Szuty expressed about the exemption for child defendants. Instinctively I agree with the Attorney that child defendants ought to be subject to the process - - -
Mr Connolly: Stick with your instincts.
MR HUMPHRIES: I should stick to my instinct, he says. Logically, however, I am not sure that I can mount a completely coherent argument for it and, as a result, I think that the issue needs to be kept under review. I do not know what processes the Government proposes to put in place to continue to monitor the operation of this experiment. I would hope that we do not consider that the issue is dead and resolved now that we have passed legislation. I hope, for example, that there is at least some process for practitioners to be interviewed or to be surveyed every so often about their experience with this process. If that is the case I think we would have a reasonable chance of saying that we are keeping the effect or the impact of this new procedure under review, and that would be appropriate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .