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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2007 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

The presumption was introduced in acknowledgment of the fact that it is appropriate for alleged reoffenders, particularly when serious offences are involved, to be required to prove exceptional or special circumstances before being granted bail. Those amendments have gone down very well. Recent events, however, have highlighted that the provision as currently drafted is unduly restrictive, in that not all people alleged to have committed a serious offence are bailed.

Bail arises as a possibility after a person is arrested and charged. However, whilst it is anticipated that most people alleged to have committed a serious offence will be arrested, that is not always the case. Instead, in our system an alleged offender may be summoned to appear at court or may enter into a voluntary agreement to attend court, known as a VATAC. If a person is arrested and brought before the court, the court may dispense with the requirement of bail.

In addition, if a person fails to appear in court in accordance with a bail undertaking, he or she then ceases to be on bail. Under the current act, if such a person allegedly commits another serious offence whilst the initial charge is pending, the presumption against bail does not apply. Similarly, if a person who has failed to answer their bail-and a warrant usually issues then-commits some further offences after that date and prior to being apprehended, the act will not apply. That is very much an unintended consequence.

It is logical and it is appropriate to extend the presumption to cover such people. This bill achieves this by applying the presumption to a person alleged to have committed a serious offence while a charge against the person for another serious offence is pending or outstanding. A pending charge is defined to include a person who has been issued with a summons or who has entered into a VATAC in relation to a serious offence, and a person arrested for an offence but not yet charged, unless the person is later released without a charge.

An outstanding charge covers people who have been charged with a serious offence where the charges have not been finally determined. This means, for example, that if the charges relating to the first alleged offence have been dismissed or withdrawn or a verdict has been handed down in relation to the charge, the presumption against bail will not apply in relation to an alleged subsequent offence. Special provisions apply if a new trial is then ordered on appeal.

Mr Speaker, the bill introducing the presumption against bail was passed by an overwhelming majority of the Assembly. Again, I thank members for that. I think that is a significant advancement in the criminal law and a significant advancement against crime, especially some of the burglaries we see in this territory. This bill simply improves the operation of the presumption by removing the unnecessary distinction between alleged offenders on bail and those who have had proceedings instituted against them by way of a VATAC or a summons, or who otherwise are not on bail.

If a majority of members are happy with it, I will seek to have the bill debated on Thursday, but I leave that to members. I commend the bill to the Assembly. It will further enhance our criminal law.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stanhope ) adjourned to the next sitting.

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