Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2509 ..

Where a matter is committed for trial in the Supreme Court the DPP endeavours to -

. determine whether to proceed further within 28 days of receiving the committal transcript; and

. respond to any "no bill" submission within 28 days.

These measures require the co-operation of both referring agencies (in providing briefs and other support) and the defence (in making representations and undertaking plea discussions at an early stage).

(2) There are many stages of the process at which a delay can occur. Similarly there are an almost infinite number of reasons as to why a delay occurs. The DPP prepares all cases which have been listed by the court for hearing on the basis that they will proceed. The court may, of its own volition or upon application by either side, vary any date so allocated. Where the adjournment of the hearing of a Magistrates Court case is requested by the DPP the court may do any of the following things:

. refuse an adjournment and dismiss the case;

. take what evidence is available and adjourn the case for further hearing on another date;

. vacate the hearing date and fix a fresh date;

. make any bail determination it deems appropriate;

. award costs to the defendant for the aborted hearing.

There have been a limited number of instances in the past year in which cases have been adjourned in the Magistrates Court at the request of the DPP due to factors beyond its control. These include cases where:

. the referring agency has failed to provide or has delayed the provision of a brief of evidence;

. the referring agency has failed to secure or arrange the attendance of witnesses or an interpreter.

. witnesses have failed to attend or have been unable to attend.

The precise number of such instances cannot be ascertained without conducting a complete audit of the thousands of cases conducted in the Magistrates Court during the past year. However at this stage only one case has been identified where a hearing was adjourned at the request of the DPP where the defendants were in custody. That was a committal hearing into a complex drug conspiracy involving international investigations which had not been completed as at the allocated hearing date. In fact a date for hearing was obtained somewhat precipitously for the very reason that the defendants were in custody.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .