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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1135 ..

consideration, the best interests of the child. “The best interests”—even though they may not be—are interpreted to mean that the child should be at large. Some juveniles can commit some pretty horrendous offences. The Law Reform Commission saw no difference in relation to serious crimes as to why they should receive special treatment from that received by adults.

On page 69 of the commission’s report, in dealing with the current sections there, it is stated:

The Commission also doubts the need for these provisions. In this case, it is again concerned at the inclusion of a reference to section 12 of the Children and Young People Act. As previously mentioned, it does not seem appropriate to require that bail decisions be based upon the best interests of accused persons even if they are juveniles.

Accordingly, we will be seeking to take out that provision. The government has watered it down to a primary consideration, which is better than a paramount consideration; nevertheless, it has not given force to what the Law Reform Commission has recommended. Remember the names of those on the Law Reform Commission? A cross-section of Canberra’s legal fraternity—hardly a redneck committee—deliberated long and hard and came up with these sensible provisions. Those sensible provisions should have been enacted by the government and we will seek to do so. The Law Reform Commission did a very thorough and timely study on this matter. There were some considerable problems with the Bail Act 1992 which the Follett government introduced and passed.

I am glad to see that the government is reversing the presumption for murder. There has been considerable angst in the community that, of six people charged with murder, only one is in custody; the other five are out on bail. That has caused considerable angst in the community. I think we have all received a letter from one of the most learned and respected lawyers in Canberra, Mr David Cross—a man I greatly respect. With the greatest respect to my old friend, I feel that to an extent he misses the point. Time has moved on and other states have introduced different legislation. Our Bail Act 1992 is sorely in need of upgrading. David refers more to the situation that occurred before, a situation he and I are both well aware of where very rarely people were charged with murder in the ACT. I am scratching my head trying to think of anyone who had been charged with murder being granted bail in the 80s or in the early 90s. Thankfully we did not have very many murders. Murder is the most serious offence of all. It is true to say that quite often people certainly tend to murder those they know. Maybe there is not a huge danger of their absconding but murder is still a very serious offence where traditionally, even though—thankfully—we have had very few in years gone by in the territory, invariably persons were remanded in custody because it was the most serious of offences.

I commend the government for doing that. They have had a number of representations from a number of victims, and have at least listened to them. But they should have gone further because the other serious offences I have mentioned are often where problems arise. I have mentioned Patrick John Hudd and his offence of kidnapping. I am certainly well aware of a number of cases where people who have been charged with armed robbery and malicious wounding have been brought before the courts for committing further nasty offences. Whilst it does not happen every day of the week, it still happens

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