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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3798 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I have to report that none of my colleagues were prepared to support the provisions suggested by the Canberra Times. That does not mean that we cannot or should not return to that issue at some point in the future. It certainly is an issue which I think we need to keep under review. I suppose the issue that Mr Wood has raised about Joh's jury gives rise to a question about the extent to which the media should be able to report in these circumstances. If the media had access to information in the Joh's jury case, perhaps that sort of disclosure is the only disclosure that we would otherwise get of such practices. This is not, perhaps, the context in which to pursue that issue, but I indicate that it is an interesting question which we may need to return to in the future.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Bill, by leave, taken as a whole

Amendment (by Mr Wood) proposed:

Page 12, line 32, clause 24, proposed new paragraph 42C(7)(b), add the following subparagraph:

"(iv) a statement made or information provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions about a decision, or the reason for a decision, not to institute or conduct a prosecution or proceedings for an alleged contempt of court or alleged offence relating to jury deliberations or a juror's identity.".

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (6.42): Mr Speaker, I support the amendment. The circumstance that Mr Wood is talking about is where the DPP considers a prosecution in relation to some malpractice in respect of a jury. Generally speaking, the DPP does not make statements about prosecutions in the sense of announcing that a prosecution is not to go ahead; that is not the general course of action. It will be the case, though, on rare occasions that a particular matter will attract strong public interest. On those rare occasions, an allegation about jury impropriety might be so widely publicised that it would be in the interests of the community to know a bit about the circumstances of the matter. In those circumstances this amendment would operate, and I think operate appropriately. In that circumstance, I think it is fair to have some capacity to disclose. That is why we support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

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