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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1151 ..

Clauses 19 to 29, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 30.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (9.19): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 4 and 5 circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MR STANHOPE: I move amendments Nos 4 and 5 circulated in my name together [see schedule 5 at page 1186]. These are amendments to clause 30 which it was felt, upon reflection, were too open to interpretation. This clause addresses the powers of magistrates and judges to review bail decisions. The intent of the clause is to allow magistrates or judges to review bail decisions if circumstances change, or evidence changes. The amendments will clarify the sections contemplating magistrates reviewing their own or other magistrates’ decisions and judges reviewing their own or other judges’ decisions.

MR STEFANIAK (9.21): I hear what the Attorney is saying. The convenience of it is that, quite often, the magistrate who makes the initial decision might not be available when the need comes up. I suppose that is one of the reasons behind this. However, having practised extensively in the jurisdiction, I think it is preferable for the same magistrate who deals with the matter to have that matter come back before him or her if there is going to be a review of the decision. The magistrate is well aware of the facts and is in a much better position than a magistrate who has no idea of what has gone on before. In fact, I have seen—not travesties of justice—some unfortunate decisions being made quickly where a breach of recognizance, a variation for bail, or whatever, has come before a completely different magistrate who simply cannot be aware of what has really happened before. Often you do not get the best decision-making in that situation. I have seen that in a number of instances in the past. I think it is always preferable if the person who has initially had the carriage of the matter can continue to have that matter before them. So I rather liked what was there before.

I suppose that, if the Attorney can assure me that the amendments are there for practical reasons, of the same magistrate physically not always being available, then with some reluctance the opposition would accept this amendment, although what is there now is actually not a bad thing if it is feasible. It is always far better for someone to go back before the same judicial officer who has some knowledge of the matter, rather than someone who is coming in completely cold.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new clause 30A.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (9.23): I move amendment No 6 circulated in my name

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