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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1134 ..

Court judge; Mary-Ellen Barry; Professor John Braithwaite; Lisbeth Campbell, a magistrate; Professor Richard Campbell—I do not think he is related; Peter Hohnen, a well-known barrister; David Hughes; Jennifer Kitchin; Ian Nichol, a well-known solicitor; and Philip Walker, a well-known barrister who, at that stage, was probably still working with the ACT government solicitors. Professor Charles Rowland, a very distinguished academic—I think he might have even lectured Mr Stanhope at university—was special advisor. They took a long time—they talked to lots of people—but they got a consensus with groups as disparate as the DPP and the Legal Aid Office and a consensus amongst themselves on the vexed issue of bail. Their recommendation, which is to be found at page 36 of the report, is that section 8 be amended and that there should be a presumption against bail for the following types of offences:

(a) treason or murder;

(b) any offence in the course of committing which the accused person is alleged to have used or threatened to use violence with weapon apparently capable of causing death or serious injury or a replica of such a weapon;

(c) contravening a protection order or restraining order …

(d) an offence of trafficking in relation to a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence or an offence of conspiring to commit such an offence …

(e) an offence under section 231(1), 233A or 233B(1) of the Customs Act 1901 … in relation to a commercial quantity of narcotic goods …

There are a number of serious offences, but the interesting offence is where “the accused person is alleged to have used or threatened to use violence with weapon apparently capable of causing death or serious injury”. That is what the Law Reform Commission want. With my amendments I have faithfully sought, where possible—they have to be put into the context of the bill—to include a number of offences, which Mr Stanhope now has in his category of “no presumption either way”, in the category where the Law Reform Commission wanted them: that is, presumption against bail.

I have added to Mr Stanhope’s current offences of murder, attempt murder and conspiracy to murder the offences of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm; sexual assault in the first and second degree, that is, rape with violence and in company—the second degree is rape in company—so they are pretty nasty offences; sexual intercourse—in other words, rape—with a young person under 10 years old, another very heinous offence; armed robbery; and aggravated burglary. These are particularly nasty offences where violence is invariably used, nasty offences that the community abhors—the types of offences mentioned by the Law Society in its recommendations.

My other amendments are to include in the category of “no presumption either way” some other serious offences such as recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm––an offence which, I think, carries 10 years; wounding; assault with intent to commit certain indictable offences; kidnapping; robbery; and burglary. Again, these are very serious offences. The offence of robbery, for example, which carries 14 years, is nothing like, say, armed robbery. Burglary is a very prevalent and serious offence but is not in the same category, obviously, as the offences I mentioned earlier.

The opposition will be seeking to move these amendments to sensibly beef up Mr Stanhope’s interesting category of “no presumption either way”. We have one further amendment which, again, is in line with the Law Society’s recommendation in relation to children. The act as it stands has the court having to take into account, as a paramount

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