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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1140 ..

In response to the scrutiny of bills comments, the Attorney-General explains the bill in terms of the Human Rights Bill as “… meeting three crucial tests in relation to a person’s liberty: the bill will ensure that no-one is deprived of their liberty arbitrarily, anyone who is placed on remand can only be remanded according to the law and everyone on remand has a right to apply to the court to test the lawfulness of their remand.” However, I would have thought that the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty was also an important right as is the right to be entitled to a trial within a reasonable time or to release. I have serious concerns on the last point if we continue to see more people deprived of their liberty before trial. We already have a problem accommodating remandees and we know that there are often considerable delays for these people in going to trial. These are practical considerations that I think are very important.

This bill makes significant changes to the granting of bail without, in the Greens’ view, an adequate reason. Being put into the remand centre is not a small matter. After six months on remand for many people that means there is no job, they could have lost their house and their relationships as well as their general social support network may well have broken down. This is someone who has been charged but not yet tried. This is someone who may not be guilty.

For murder charges, there is not a high conviction rate. This will make it more likely that people who will be found to be not guilty will be locked up and will have their lives ruined. The Law Society in the comments it sent out on the bail bill made the point that 70 per cent of people charged with murder in Canberra in the ACT have been acquitted. There is a conviction rate of 30 per cent. So 70 per cent of those people under this law would have been incarcerated for a considerable period and may well have suffered all the social damage that I have just listed. Of course I am not suggesting that I do not recognise the terrible impact on people’s lives if a murder has been committed. It is a horrific offence. It has ongoing effects on the relatives and friends of the person murdered. But, on the question of bail, we have to separate the matters of what might seem a just punishment or consequence for the person who actually committed the offence from the question of how to treat someone who has not yet been tried, someone who we must presume to be innocent.

It will not help the family or friends if someone who is innocent is jailed. Ultimately, the person who is found guilty must meet the consequences. The courts apply punishments so that the community as a whole can feel and see that justice has somehow been done. There is a very big question as to whether the prison system itself can be said to deliver justice. Prisons generally are brutal and brutalising places. I think there are very serious questions about whether sending people to these kinds of prisons makes our community safer. I think in the end it makes it less safe and also less just. But that is a matter for another debate. I just point it out.

The crude definition of “serious offence” developed under the previous government continues its life here too. As I have said, although I cannot agree with the basis for this division, the limitations on bail decisions are at least structured by reference to specific serious offences rather than the blanket five years which, as I have pointed out before, could be the result for stealing two decent bicycles. It is not serious crime as most people would understand it, I think—as bad as it is.

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