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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (17 February) . . Page.. 263 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

I am extremely concerned that the possibility that the victim may not recall being molested could be a valid defence and could set a dangerous precedent. Is the Attorney-General aware of any other details relating to the case other than what was published in the paper that he can share with us today? If not, could he please seek clarification on behalf of the Assembly?

MR SPEAKER: Mr Attorney, I think you are aware of the sensitivities of the matter.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I am aware of those sensitivities and I do not propose to comment on the particular case that Mr Rugendyke has raised. I appreciate his concern about it. I appreciate that he and others may be asking questions of the kind that have just been asked, but it would be inappropriate for me to pass comment on particular cases before the court. I am happy to obtain a transcript of the proceedings and forward it to Mr Rugendyke, but I do not think that I should pass any further comment on the case.

Mr Speaker, I will say that from time to time we all have issues of concern about what goes on in our courts. My observation in the last five years as Attorney-General has been, almost invariably, that, when more information has been brought to my attention and placed before me about a particular matter before the courts, I have had more sympathy than I previously may have had to particular decisions of the court. I do not propose to comment, as I said, on whether this would be such a case or not.

I do note, Mr Speaker, that apparently there has been an increase in the severity of sentencing in recent years, and I measure that by the fact that there has been a considerable increase in the number of people who have been incarcerated by ACT courts. Our prison population has risen quite significantly, and that is only partly accounted for, in my view, by an increase in the seriousness of certain categories of crime taking place in the ACT. I cannot prove it but I think that a study would demonstrate that there has been more severe sentencing by not just the ACT courts but also by courts across Australia in the last few years. Some would welcome that as a way of indicating a greater concern on the part of the community about particular crimes being committed.

For my part, I stand by the principle in our system of government which leaves decisions about sentencing and the appropriateness of sentencing to our courts. I think the role of the Government in those exercises ends when it appoints particular individuals to the courts. We have taken the approach, in the appointment of people to the courts, that it is important to stress that the needs of the community, particularly those who are victims in the community, have to be addressed in the sense of the processes. But, having offered that piece of advice, the judges and magistrates, on their appointment, are their own masters or mistresses. The Government is prepared then to observe that process, hopeful that the quality of people we have appointed ensures that justice has been done in individual cases.

MR RUGENDYKE: I have a supplementary question. Are you in a position as yet to know whether you would be recommending that the DPP appeal the decision, given its apparent leniency?

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