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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 564 ..

Does that mean it is open slather with graffiti? We have enough problems as it is, but that is one potential way of interpreting that clause. That may well mean it would be impossible for anyone to be convicted of a graffiti offence.

Mr Stanhope: Read section 28 to us.

MR STEFANIAK: That is interesting. I will come to that, although we are not dealing with that one yet.

MR SPEAKER: We are dealing only with clauses 13 to 27.

MR STEFANIAK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will come to clause 38, which talks a lot about the scrutiny report.

There are significant problems in relation to clause 18. Clause 18 (5) states that anyone who is awaiting trial must not be detained in custody, as a general rule. This is contrary to a number of very sensible provisions we have in legislation, such as restrictions on persons getting bail.

The Bail Act ensures that persons who commit further crimes whilst they are on bail are remanded in custody unless there are exceptional circumstances. I consider that to be a very sensible piece of legislation that has helped to reduce the burglary rate significantly and helped to reduce other types of crime such as armed robbery. I hear what Mr Pratt says. That could well be a real problem because of the incompatibility of some of our acts. Those acts are not necessarily overridden by this legislation but they seem to be inconsistent with some of the clauses in the Human Rights Act.

In particular, it would seem that clause 9A of the Bail Act, as it stands, is inconsistent with Mr Stanhope’s clause 18 (5). We will be supporting, and in fact trying to beef up, some of the legislation that will be passed in relation to bail legislation but that might also be inconsistent with this legislation. Subclause (5) could well mean that as a general rule anyone, no matter how serious the crime they are alleged to have committed or no matter how many crimes they have committed and continued to commit until their matters are finalised, can remain at large. Quite clearly that is something most of the community would have huge problems with. This again indicates problems with Mr Stanhope’s bill. Clause 18 (7) states:

Anyone who has been unlawfully arrested or detained has the right to compensation for the arrest or detention.

I would hate to see that interpreted to mean that anyone in that situation would automatically get compensation. People may have been arrested unlawfully on a technicality but, morally, they deserve to have been arrested and it is only a legal quirk that makes the arrest unlawful. In no way should people who have committed offences and deserve to be arrested be able to get compensation just because of a legal technicality.

We have provisions in our law. For example, whilst costs follow the event in case of an unsuccessful prosecution in the Magistrates Court there is a general rule that, if the

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