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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1815 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

any intoxicated person is care, not incarceration or punishment, and that police cells may not be the best place in which to provide that help.

Part 7 of the bill extends the limitation period for prosecutions for minor theft offences. The current limitation period for such offences is 12 months. I need to check that. I thought it was six months. However, Mr Speaker, many minor thefts are not detected until after that period expires. For example, if an employee were to steal an amount early in the financial year, it may take until after the end of that financial year, when audited financial statements are in preparation, for the theft to be discovered. Similarly, with multiple shoplifting offences, the police have often found that there are quite often a number of additional offences which they are simply statute barred from prosecuting and which should be prosecuted. Part 7 of the bill and the amendment there will fix up that anomaly.

Part 8 of the bill will improve the effectiveness of provisions in the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act of 1999 dealing with banned traffic devices, such as radar detectors, by allowing police to search vehicles reasonably suspected of carrying such devices. Part 9 makes a minor consequential amendment to the Road Transport (Offences) Regulations of 2000.

The criminal justice system balances the rights and freedoms of an accused person against the broader interest of society in ensuring that justice is done and is seen to be done. The bill is not about tipping the scales against the accused; it is about achieving a balance which our community can fairly say is just. Accordingly, Part 10 of the bill contains a new right to review acquittals which arise from an error by the trial judge. Appeals against acquittals are already permitted in Tasmania and Western Australia, and the ACT has for many years permitted "appeals", in the form of applications for an order to review, from decisions by a magistrate to dismiss a charge or discharge a defendant. The Canadian Supreme Court has determined that such appeals do not breach the longstanding prohibition on double jeopardy.

The new power for orders of review for Supreme Court acquittals furthers the interests of justice by allowing a defendant who is acquitted only because the court made a mistake to be retried in accordance with the law. The Court of Appeal, once it is established, will be able to set aside an acquittal and order a new trial where the trial judge wrongly directed the jury to acquit or made an error of law in the course of the trial. The power to review an acquittal will not extend to disturbing a jury's finding.

Mr Speaker, this Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill is not the opening bid in a law and order auction. A simplistic approach to addressing law and order issues prior to an election would have been to increase penalties across the board, as has been done in other jurisdictions. Our view is that higher penalties are of no use if the perpetrators are not located and convicted, or if the police have restrictions on their powers which prevent them from arresting those persons and placing them before the court.

Instead, this bill is a careful refinement and extension of existing provisions which are intended to ensure that the guilty, and only the guilty, are held accountable for their actions. In many instances it brings the ACT into line with what occurs across the border, especially in terms of things like reasonable suspicion rather than reasonable belief. I think it is ludicrous that criminals in New South Wales are able to be

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