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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 11 Hansard (22 October) . . Page.. 3962 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

refusing bail to a person who would not have committed any further crime and sometimes even to a person who is never convicted of the offence they have been detained for. We need to be careful that we are weighing up both sides of this argument and not legislating simply on the anecdotal evidence of a few unfortunate cases.

We need to be clear that we simply cannot expect our judges to make the correct determination on every occasion with very limited information. The legal system does not have a crystal ball. We also need to be careful about locking people up for an action they have yet to commit. Obviously, there is considerable community opinion supporting the idea that perpetrators of crime be brought to justice and that those arrested be prevented from committing further crime.

However, we need to ensure that there is some sort of evidence or reason for denying the freedom of a person who has not been convicted of a crime. It is appropriate that the onus is on the Crown to demonstrate the reason that a person should be denied bail, and not the reverse, or at the very least that the court brings no presumption to the decision.

Whether under the current arrangements or Mr Stefaniak's proposed model, the discretion will still be placed in the hands of judges as to when a defendant should be granted bail. While Mr Stefaniak's bill is likely to reduce the numbers who commit crimes while on bail, it will not prevent this from occurring in every case.

On the other hand, it is also likely to increase the number of defendants who are detained unnecessarily and the cost to the taxpayer of detaining them. Perhaps, more importantly, it continues to erode the civil rights of ACT residents. I am not convinced that the benefits of Mr Stefaniak's proposal outweigh the cost to civil liberties and the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

As I said, I have heard from constituents and members of the community about this piece of legislation, and compelling arguments have been put on both sides. It is always moving to hear personal stories of how crime has affected people and what it has meant to their lives and their future. Whilst these individual cases are compelling, we need to look at the bigger picture.

On both sides there are unfortunate cases where people have been denied bail and have then had the charges dropped or a not guilty conviction recorded. Yet going on remand has had a huge impact on their families, may have meant losing housing and has set them on a downward spiral they were not on before they were put on remand.

I have considered this bill quite closely. In my mind, civil liberties and the responsibility of the court to make the right decision need to be upheld. Even though a few unfortunate cases have been brought to my attention, I think that our courts are doing their best at this point in time with the information they are provided with. That is what is important. There is still the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, which I think is an important underpinning of our justice system. We should not lock up people under conditions of denying them bail because of something they are yet to do. That is a very important part of our justice system.

I understand that the government is currently reviewing bail procedures and will be preparing its own bill in due course from a more moderate perspective than

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