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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1152 ..

which inserts a new clause 30A [see schedule 5 at page 1186]. This amendment introduces a new clause 30A to the Bail Amendment Bill. The clause will amend the Bail Act 1992 to make it clear that the section contemplates a fresh application for bail.

Proposed new Clause 30A agreed to.

Clause 31.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (9.24): I move amendment No 7 circulated in my name [see schedule 5 at page 1186]. I spoke to this earlier. Government amendment No 7 amends clause 31 of the Bail Amendment Act to clarify that the section means that a judge can review a decision made by any judge, rather than just a decision made by the judge himself or herself.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 32 to 41 taken together and agreed to.

Clause 42.

MR STEFANIAK (9.25): I move amendment No, 6 circulated in my name [see schedule 6 at page 1188]. This amendment deals with offences in the category of no presumption either way. It is to an extent conditional on my amendment to offences where there is presumption against bail. Apart from some of the ones left there from the Chief Minister’s bill, I have included some additional categories. The ones left there are manslaughter, industrial manslaughter and wounding. Recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm is included, and assault with intent to commit certain indictable offences, kidnapping, sexual intercourse without consent, robbery, and burglary are added.

These are serious offences which I think are worthy of being in the category of no presumption one way or the other. However, having been told already that none of you people are going to agree to this—a very silly decision by you all—it is it not going to succeed. I reiterate the points I have made in the in-principle debate in relation to these offences. It would be quite logical to slot them into this category if my amendments to the presumption against bail category were to be accepted. So I commend the amendments to the Assembly, but I can read numbers.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 42 agreed to.

Clause 43.

MR STEFANIAK (9.27): Again, I think that is consequential so I am not going to say any more on that.

Clause 43 agreed to.

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