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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3479 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

sit in the Federal Court they have the benefit of court security legislation, but when they sit in the ACT Supreme Court there is no such protective legislation.

One of the cornerstones of our civil and criminal justice systems is that justice should be administered openly and, thus, that proceedings should be open to any member of the public who wishes to observe them. This right to observe legal proceedings is, of course, subject to some necessary qualifications, for example with respect to proceedings in the Children's Court or before the Mental Health Tribunal.

Further, the court registry is a place where members of the community, be they individuals or members of a business or organisation, generally have a right of access to allow them to issue proceedings, pay debts or fines, or carry on their business.

Breaches of court security are, thankfully, not commonplace in the ACT. There have been relatively few occasions to date where persons have disrupted the workings of the court to such an extent that they have needed to be removed from court premises. Further, there have been few occasions where the sensitive or notorious nature of proceedings before the court have required that screening and search procedures be implemented to check the persons who wished to observe the proceedings.

However, from time to time court staff do receive information of possible disruption to court proceedings. For example, during the course of one criminal trial involving witnesses who were serving lengthy prison sentences in the special purposes prison at Long Bay, information was provided to court staff that an attempt may have been made at the trial to free the prisoners. Fortunately, on that occasion no attempt to escape was made.

Concerns have been expressed to me by court staff about the limitation of their current powers to deal with court security issues on the few occasions when they arise. The concerns relate to the methods that court staff can employ to remove persons from court premises on those occasions when the police are not available, and any potential liability that they may face for carrying out their duties.

It is the responsibility of the Territory Government to balance a person's right of access to the courts with the need to ensure the safety of court staff and persons who use the court or simply wish to observe proceedings. With that responsibility in mind, I present the Court Security Bill 2000. As its name suggests, the Bill deals with security arrangements for ACT courts and tribunals.

The Bill emphasises the right of a person to enter and remain on court premises. The Bill also acknowledges that the security measures provided in the Bill operate in addition to any other powers that may relate to court security. For example, at common law a judge has the power to hear evidence in private in certain circumstances, or to punish a person for contempt.

The security measures which can be applied to ensure safety on court premises include powers to require a person to identify themselves and provide proof of identity; powers to require a search of personal property, such as bags, to facilitate checks for weapons or explosives hidden in such places; powers to require that a person submit to a screening search, similar to the searches carried out at an airport; and powers to require that a person permit a "pat down" of outer clothing, again to check whether a person has a weapon or explosives under his or her clothes.

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