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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 8 Hansard (27 October) . . Page.. 2241 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

So far as committal proceedings are concerned - where jury impact is not an issue - my advice is that the availability of CCTV is important to protect complainants from excessive cross-examination intended to discourage the complaint from being tried.

The availability of CCTV to enable complainants in sexual assault matters to give evidence:

. is supported by agencies representing both prosecution and defence interests, as well as bodies that are advocates for victims of sexual assault;

. is important for use in committal proceedings where it can provide a measure of protection to alleged victims from cross-examination intended to damage the victim or discourage the complaint being tried;

. to the extent that it has been used in trials, has apparently not given rise to any adverse reports concerning its use; and

. is now an established feature of the criminal justice process of a number of Australian jurisdictions.

I therefore propose that the Assembly support the Bill for the purpose of ensuring that CCTV is available for use by complainants in sexual assault matters. If that support is forthcoming, the legislation, once enacted, will be promptly gazetted.

However, I do think there is a need in the longer term to consider some reform of the Act. I mentioned earlier that the ACT legislation differs somewhat from that in place in other jurisdictions. I recall that when the 1994 amendments were debated in this place I expressed some concerns about why we had chosen to single out two categories of witnesses - children and complainants in sexual assault matters - as being able to give evidence via CCTV when there are, arguably, other categories or particular witnesses who in certain circumstances ought to be able to avail themselves of CCTV to give their evidence. For example, very elderly victims of assaults or bag snatching could well be as traumatised, by having to appear in court in the presence of an alleged offender, as alleged victims of sexual assault.

I am also somewhat concerned that the ACT legislation does not require any criteria to be satisfied before a witness is able to give evidence via closed-circuit television. While I think it can be argued that children are a special case and we recognise that the inexperience of children does affect their capacity to deal with the environment of the courtroom and this calls for special treatment, the same cannot be said of all adult witnesses. Some are more robust than others, irrespective of the offence of which they are a witness or victim.

I am aware that other jurisdictions - South Australia, for example - permit not only children and complainants in sexual assault matters, but also persons with an intellectual disability or other witnesses whose circumstances merit it, to give evidence via CCTV if they satisfy the court as to specified criteria; namely, that it is desirable that evidence

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