Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4065 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
Sexual offences against the person in chapter 5 has been picked up-I won't read out the full titles-by acts in Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales. The code is not yet complete in respect of fatal offences against the person, as set out in chapter 5, but offences have been implemented by the Commonwealth Criminal Code Amendment (United Nations and Associated Personnel) Act 2000.
Chapter 6, serious drug offences, has not been picked up yet, but some of it has been implemented in every jurisdiction except South Australia and New South Wales. Chapter 7, offences against administration of justice, has not yet been picked up by anyone. Chapter 8, "public order offences: contamination of goods", has been picked up by acts in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. Chapter 9, "offences against humanity: slavery", is picked up by the Commonwealth, South Australia and the Northern Territory.
The category of model provisions for mentally impaired accused was picked up in South Australia in 1995, Victoria in 1997 and the ACT in 1999. Model provisions for forensic procedures was picked up by Victoria in 1997, South Australia in 1998, the Commonwealth in 1998, and the ACT, New South Wales and Tasmania in 2000. Model provisions for the DNA database was picked up by the Commonwealth, New South Wales, the ACT and Tasmania in 2000 and last year by South Australia in the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. Finally, the abolition of the year and a day rule has been picked up by New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania; and by the ACT in 1995. So although there is still a way to go, quite a bit of the code has now been picked up.
I must say that I had a bit of a chuckle when I read in the explanatory memorandum and, I think, the Chief Minister's speech that some time honoured words in the part of the code which deals with criminal responsibility have been changed to reflect modern times and to make it simpler. This made me scratch my head because initially I thought that the language actually did not seem to be all that much simpler-in fact, it is a little bit clumsy, but I daresay we are all going to get used to it. Several other lawyers I talked to similarly felt that the language was rather quaint, I suppose, and a little bit hard to get your head around, but ultimately, I have no doubt, that will occur.
The provisions of the legislation are of great significance to our community. This bill states some of the very fundamental principles of criminal responsibility. It is indeed evident from the newspaper debate over a number of years that citizens are very interested in questions of criminal responsibility. The scrutiny of bills committee report made mention of that. It points out that citizens are interested in the criminal responsibility of a person who, for example, is drunk and assaults someone; of a person who injures or kills someone found criminally trespassing on that person's property; of a person who kills another, such as a spouse, who is alleged to have battered the person over a long period; or, indeed, people who plead that they were insane when they committed serious offences.
The question of the attribution of criminal responsibility in such cases is not a matter for legal expertise alone. The law in these issues reflects the kind of society we are and want to be. The scrutiny of bills committee mentioned that the rights dimensions are also clear; that the rights of the person who might be punished, or not punished, must be weighed against the rights of the victims and the rights of the community as a whole to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .