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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2439 ..

MR STEFANIAK (10.56): I move:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

As with anything in the criminal justice system, bail is often quite a contentious issue. The ACT had a mishmash of laws, actually, until about 1992, when the current Bail Act was introduced. Pre-1992, it was basically, effectively, just up to the court. After 1992, there was a presumption in favour of bail, even for the most serious offences. There were a number of other provisions, which are not the subject of this particular bill.

The Law Reform Commission, back in December 1997, received terms of reference from the then Attorney-General. I'm quoting now from the Law Reform Commission report of July 2001.

1. The Terms of Reference ... reflected concerns that bail had sometimes been obtained in circumstances in which the continued liberty of the accused was perceived to involve an unjustified risk to the safety of other people or was otherwise contrary to the public interest. They may also have reflected concern that the relevant provisions of the existing legislation were too inflexible in some respects and too uncertain in others.

2. In response to the reference the Commission formed a working group comprising representatives from the Magistrates Court, Supreme Court, Legal Aid Office (ACT), the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The working group held several meetings which provided valuable insight into the operation of the Bail Act 1992 and problems created by the inflexibility of its provisions. The proposals ultimately adopted by the Commission emerged largely from the discussions with that group and the suggestions of individual members.

3. A discussion paper was prepared and suggestions for reform were subsequently referred to the Criminal Law Consultative Committee which includes representatives from the Bar Association, the Law Society, and others concerned with criminal law and procedures as well as representatives from those government agencies which were also involved in the working party. A further rigorous examination of the proposals ensued. A proposal that the statutory presumption in favour of bail be reversed in the case of certain serious offences proved quite contentious. However, despite some initial expressions of concern, the Committee ultimately supported the main thrust of the proposals now reflected in the recommendations contained in this report.

The commission went on to say in its report:

The Commission wishes to express its gratitude to those who have raised problems arising out of the existing law, suggested changes or otherwise contributed to the general debate concerning issues discussed in this paper. Ultimately, of course, the Commission is charged with the duty of forming its own conclusions and offering its own recommendations.

The commission concluded its introduction by saying

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