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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1648 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

In these figures, there may well be instances where the breaches are pretty technical. I accept that that may well be so and that it might, to an extent, artificially inflate these figures. However, 27 per cent in the financial year gone and 35 per cent so far this financial year are very worrying figures. I suspect there would not be too many in that percentage which are purely technical. I believe some of them are far more substantial than that. Where the courts come in here is to ensure that strong action is taken in relation to breaches. The community certainly expects them to do that.

Community service orders are often given as an alternative to a term of imprisonment. They were introduced-and I cannot remember which government did it-both here and interstate as a proper and reasonable alternative for an offence which would normally carry, and be expected to carry, a term of incarceration. So CSOs are not given lightly-they are given as an alternative to imprisonment. That is all the more reason for the courts to take breaches-any significant breach, rather than a technical breach-seriously. For the courts not to do so I think is betraying what the community expects them to do. The community expects serious breaches of these types of orders to be punished-and that punishment might well mean a term of imprisonment.

I appreciate that the Attorney does not have a huge discretion in relation to that. Nevertheless, I make the statement that I believe the courts must get a lot tougher with breaches of CSOs, and breaches of other orders imposed by courts such as bonds, suspended sentences and the like, that come before them.

Mr Speaker, there is a two-fold problem here, as to how the Attorney can take steps to redress the situation. I do not expect him to ever get to a situation where there will be no breaches. That would be utterly impossible in the scheme of things. There are, in any case, a number of steps which can be taken to tighten up the system, to identify instances where a breach may occur. Steps can be taken to stop breaches occurring.

There may be issues around very technical breaches. The government could look at what can be done there, as to what steps can be taken to see whether the courts can toughen up their approach and make the way they deal with these matters more efficient.

People know my views about our courts often being overly lenient. To some extent, that may well be part of the problem here. Yet I suspect there are other problems of a more technical or administrative nature in the way they go about their business, which also might come into play here.

I seek the support of members in relation to this. It is not good to have such significant numbers of breaches of important orders made by the courts, and potentially a considerable percentage of defendants, who have been sentenced for usually fairly serious offences, thumbing their noses at the law by not abiding by the conditions of the orders. This is something that concerns the community. With some offenders, there is a potential danger to the community of the matters reoccurring-and there may be financial costs to the community.

My motion merely calls on the government to take steps to address this problem. I am not being prescriptive as to what steps they should take, but I believe there is a

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