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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2050 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The amendment that I have moved addresses the retrospectivity issue by making it clear that the only persons who are liable to pay the higher amount are those who commit an offence on or after the date of commencement, and obviously they will be convicted after the date of commencement. Persons who commit an offence before the commencement of this amendment and are convicted after it will pay the current amount of $30. That situation is covered by the amendment.

The second issue raised by the scrutiny of bills committee related to whether persons subject to this levy are also subject to double jeopardy in that they have to pay a double penalty. There has already been some mention by other Assembly members of the scrutiny of bills committee discussion in relation to this very interesting issue.

I must say that I find some of the explanations of some of our legislation entered into and entertained by the scrutiny of bills committee very interesting. There was a most interesting discussion on the issue of double jeopardy and I thank the scrutiny of bills committee for providing a very good explanation of the law in relation to that.

It is perhaps worth noting that the committee set out a number of criteria to judge whether this levy is in fact a penalty. My colleague Mr Hargreaves discussed that as well. The levy in this case fails to meet two of the three criteria set by the committee. The committee quoted from a High Court decision. I will adopt their quote but put a negative spin on it, to some extent. They said that they did not think that this levy would cause a convicted person "to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty". That was the finding from the High Court decision quoted by the scrutiny of bills committee.

This is a levy imposed following conviction. There is no suggestion that a person should be tried a second time or even subjected to a second hearing to determine whether the $50 levy should be imposed. It is, in effect, a tax to offset the costs to the territory of providing assistance to the victims of a crime. In one sense, it is not much different to the convicted person being ordered by the court to pay the compensation directly to the victim.

The courts have had the power for a long time to make these compensation orders and I have not heard it suggested that the making of a compensation order subjects a convicted person to double jeopardy. Therefore, in that instance, I do have some difficulty with some of the analysis of the committee in relation to the issue of double jeopardy. But, as I have said, I found the report particularly interesting and I quite enjoyed reading it.

To reiterate: the amendment that I have moved meets the suggestion of the scrutiny of bills committee that there is an element of retrospectivity in the Attorney's proposal. This matter can quite easily be dealt with through my amendment. It seems to me that, in relation to a matter such as this which is of itself of no great moment and perhaps could be regarded as being not particularly significant-there might even be some suggestion it is not a truly retrospective action, although the scrutiny of bills committee believes it is-it is quite easy to overcome the concerns of the scrutiny of bills committee.

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