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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3090 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

There have been numerous instances of cases where people have been acquitted and then police have actively targeted them with a view to charging them again. There may well be a temptation to plant DNA evidence in these circumstances to secure a conviction. Close monitoring of the destruction of DNA samples on acquittal or if charges are dropped will be crucial.

It is apparent that the point at which people may be asked or required to undergo forensic procedures is also crucial. I am most seriously concerned that forensic procedures can be made compulsory, in effect, for suspects of any crime. While the argument is that the police officer must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the suspect has committed an indictable offence, such a balance of probabilities is too loose a construction.

I am also opposed to the threshold for such testing being set at the level of an indictable crime. The result may be that anyone suspected, charged or found guilty of an offence with a maximum penalty of more than a year in jail will be ordered to undertake forensic procedures. The level in other jurisdictions is five years or more. It would be reasonable perhaps to adjust the level at which people can be required to undergo forensic procedures to sentences of two years or more for offenders, with a maximum charge of five years for people suspected of or charged with offences, but I am quite aware that what is reasonable is not always possible.

I will be supporting Labor's amendments, which are perhaps more realistic in the context of this Assembly, as confirmed by Mr Rugendyke's speech just then. I would look for a close examination of the implementation and effect of this regime over the next few years and would suggest that there be a review of its operations at some time in the next Assembly. I would not mind getting a response from the members present, not that there are many, to that idea just to get it on the record.

We will be supporting Labor's amendments, although I understand that Mr Humphries has only just received them.

Mr Humphries: What a surprise!

MS TUCKER: What do you mean?

Mr Humphries: You have just seen the amendments and you are going to support them.

MS TUCKER: No, I have had them since this morning. I said that I was sorry to hear that Mr Humphries has only just seen the amendments. We have looked at the amendments carefully all day. I do not like the timing and I am very sympathetic to Mr Humphries' concerns because he has only just received them. I am very sorry that that has happened, because I think that they are good and Mr Humphries is saying that he will probably vote against them because of this bad process. I regret that that is the circumstance in which we are having to deal with the amendments at this time.

Mr Humphries: Can you blame us?

MS TUCKER: No, I have said I am sympathetic. I do not blame Mr Humphries.

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