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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3888 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Let me make the points again very clearly. I do not think the Stafford decision clears up the matter. It certainly does not clear it up as far as prevalence is concerned. I certainly believe that we have an obligation to the community to act in an area where there is, clearly, a problem with crime in the Territory. Armed robbery is one very good example of that at the present time.

Mr Moore: There is a perception, not a problem.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, it is not a perception, Mr Moore. Let me make something quite clear. I produced the figures in the Assembly in the last few weeks. There has been a rise in armed robbery. It is not perceived at all. It is actual. It is real. There has been a significant rise in armed robbery. It needs to be - - -

Mr Whitecross: Are you saying the judges have not given appropriate sentences? Is that what you are saying?

MR HUMPHRIES: That is what the judges themselves are saying, Mr Whitecross. Go and talk to the judges. They are not Easter Island statues. You can talk to them about these matters. I suspect that their views would be made very clear in the course of that. (Extension of time granted) It is perfectly clear that the judges are not permitted to take into account prevalence. Indeed, Justice Gallop made it clear some time ago that, in his view, armed robbery might actually be encouraged in the ACT because, at least at that time, there was a tendency for first time armed robbers to receive suspended sentences or non-custodial sentences of some sort. His view was that - - -

Mr Moore: Come on! That is his choice. He can give a sentence to an armed robber.

MR HUMPHRIES: That was his view. That was, clearly, his view. You and I are not judges. We do not deal with these matters on a day-to-day basis.

Mr Moore: He can give a sentence if he wants to - of course he can.

MR HUMPHRIES: That is not the case. Mr Moore seems to believe that judges can just turn a blind eye to the legislation and take into account prevalence by the back door in making a decision.

Mr Moore: That is not what I said. You were misrepresenting armed robbery.

MR HUMPHRIES: You can use - - -

Mr Whitecross: What we are saying is that, if the judges think it is a more serious offence than warrants a suspended sentence, they do not have to give a suspended sentence. That is what Mr Moore is saying. That is what I am saying.

MR HUMPHRIES: But if they cannot take into account prevalence, they may not be able to give a more serious sentence. They have to take into account - - -

Mr Whitecross: We are not talking about prevalence. We are talking about the seriousness of the offence.

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