Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3892 ..
MR QUINLAN (continuing):
However, legislation does not specify how this process is to occur. This has led to uncertainty in relation to some sentences. To rectify the situation, the bill amends the Crimes Act to require courts to state how long the offender has already spent in custody for the relevant offence or offences at the time of sentencing and to take account of this time when passing the sentence.
The bill also aims to strike a more appropriate balance between the rights of victims and offenders. In order to protect victims' safety and privacy, the bill provides that the board must not disclose a victim's personal details-that is, address, phone numbers or email addresses-to an offender. In fairness to offenders, it amends section 96 of the act so that the board may withhold a document only if there is a substantial risk that releasing the document would endanger a person or prejudice the public interest, et cetera. The current threshold in that section is too low. This could result in offenders being denied the opportunity to refute allegations made against them.
Another important aspect of the bill relates to the immunity of board members and witnesses and legal practitioners who appear before the board. Board members are protected against civil action for acts done in good faith in the performance of their functions under the act. This type of protection is common for members of statutory boards and is clearly necessary in the case of this board, given its functions. Its omission from the original act was most likely an oversight.
Witnesses and legal practitioners are given the same protection as a witness or barrister would have before the Supreme Court. Again, this is consistent with the protection given to those appearing before other statutory boards such as the Agents Board and the Health Professions Board.
There are strong public policy reasons for giving this protection. For example, it should encourage witnesses to give frank and fearless advice to the board. However, the amendments will not preclude prosecutions for perjury if such prosecutions are warranted.
The amendment to section 15 of the Remand Centres Act will enable people arrested under the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Interim) Act to be held at a remand centre while they are waiting for the board to convene. This will alleviate the current situation where such people are held inappropriately in the police watch-house. People who are before the board are already able to be held at a remand centre under section 15 of the Remand Centres Act. It is appropriate to extend this provision to cover people who are waiting to be brought before the board.
I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Smyth ) adjourned to the next sitting.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .