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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2814 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

government as something that we already have in the ACT. I am aware that we have this type of program for people who have been convicted and who are bailed awaiting sentencing and as a sentencing alternative. I am aware that there is a new program, CADAS, which will add to the range of options, a shorter term education program, as distinct from abstinent-based rehabilitation, but I would like to hear some more about how judges could refer someone who had been acquitted on the intoxication defence to this kind of program. If in fact the existing programs do not or cannot deal with people who have been acquitted, I hope the government will make an amendment to do so.

There is also a suggestion for an additional provision to deal with the situation where the attempt to commit the offence was formed and then the person becomes intoxicated to assist themselves to carry out the act. The New South Wales Crimes Act includes a provision which deals with this at subsection 428 (c), a schedule of specific intent offences as per New South Wales legislation to prevent ad hoc decisions about what involves specific intent.

Further, the Ombudsman recommended that the bill address specifically the interaction of drugs, alcohol and other substances, and the question of whether intoxication should be an aggravating or a mitigating factor in relation to the penalty for an offence. This has not been done, so I would hope that at least there will be monitoring of this possibility as part of the monitoring of the effects of the legislation.

Finally, my office has been assured that there will not be confusion over the meaning of non-prescription drugs in the absence of a definition in the bill because there is a context referring to medical therapy and a paragraph in the EM to this effect. However, I hope it will be noted if, following the manufacturer's directions for the proper amount, speed, for instance, should be used as a defence for some act or omission.

With these points to be watched and noted, I would like to support the bill. I congratulate the minister and the committee for consulting and finally bringing this to the vote.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (8.46), in reply: Mr Speaker, I thank members for their support for the bill. I am pleased that after a fairly long time since this issue first arose in the public arena in the ACT there has been some debate and we now have a chance to reflect a broader community concern about this particular defence being available in our courts. We are now closing off what I think would fairly be described as a loophole.

Mr Speaker, there is a respectable intellectual argument that says that there ought to be something like a drunk's defence when a person is in a state of sufficient intoxication that they cannot realise that they are doing certain things. In other circumstances it is reasonable to exonerate that person from the consequences of their actions. For example, if I sleepwalk and whilst sleepwalking down a street push someone into a stormwater drain and drown them, logically I would not be held responsible for my actions. I would not be charged with a crime. Similarly, if the person is sedated in a hospital operating theatre and lashes out and hits somebody nearby, they clearly will not be charged with assault because they are not sufficiently capable of forming an intent to commit the act.

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