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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1253 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The matters Mr Stanhope raises are matters of extremely great exception, very rare exception indeed, when such leave or such permission would be refused. The question is: when would such permission be refused? It could be refused if, in the view of the court, it was appropriate to protect the functions of the court. Those things can and do happen in our courts, and appropriately they happen in our courts.

Mr Stanhope states, on what evidence I do not know, that people have a fundamental right to make a personal appearance in matters in which they are involved in our courts. Sorry, Mr Stanhope, that is simply wrong. It is not the case. Already, at the present time, the court has a general discretion to exclude people from the court for a variety of reasons and in a variety of settings, and that right of the court has been exercised on a number of occasions in recent years.

For example, during the trial of Mr Eastman, on a number of occasions Mr Eastman's disruptive behaviour resulted in the court ordering that he be removed from the court and follow proceedings remotely, if not by audiovisual means then by audio means from outside the court. Where was Mr Eastman's fundamental right to be present in the court on that occasion?

Mr Stanhope: That is a spurious example.

MR HUMPHRIES: It is not spurious, Mr Stanhope. You have just told this Assembly that every person in this country has an absolute right to appear in a court. Mr Eastman was charged with a serious criminal offence.

Mr Stanhope: I also acknowledged that there were a number of exceptions to that.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Stanhope, these are the exceptions we are building into this legislation-the exceptions which give the court the power to say, "No, it is not appropriate in these circumstances to give this person the personal right of appearance." It happens. That is exactly what the government's amendments are all about and exactly why the Assembly supported the amendments last year. There does need to be a power of the court to exclude people in certain circumstances.

Mr Stanhope's assertions are wrong. There are no general rights of appearance in Australian courts. My understanding, for example, is that if you make an application for leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia and you are a person in custody, you are not entitled to personal appearance, except in the exceptional circumstance where you are unrepresented in that appeal. In the highest court in the land, you have no right of personal appearance.

Mr Stanhope: They take appeals from the psychiatric-

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Stanhope, excuse me. Perhaps I can help.

MR HUMPHRIES: Sometimes they do.

MR SPEAKER: Excuse me, Mr Minister. Mr Stanhope, you have another 10 minutes on this matter. You can respond to Mr Humphries. It will save interjecting. That is what I am saying. Please continue, minister.

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