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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1166 ..

MS DUNDAS: You would have been sentenced to five years or more. I do not think that that is the best way of doing this. But, as I said, if the main goal is to avoid an outcome that offends a victim or victim’s family, it would have been more appropriate to single out those violent crimes rather than just throwing in all offences where a maximum term of imprisonment is five years or longer. If this bill is successful, we will have a situation where offences will include a range of property crimes where there is not an obvious victim, as I discussed when we debated the Criminal Code.

The arguments have not been put about why this needs to be rushed through the Assembly. I state again that I would have liked more than a week to consider the real implications of what we are doing here, and I will be opposing those clauses which relate to matters a judge may consider at a special hearing of the person who has been assessed by the Mental Health Tribunal as unfit to instruct the legal representative. I will talk more about that in the detail stage.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (10.22): The government introduced the Crimes Amendment Bill to clarify the law to rectify a deficiency recently identified which is that our legislation currently makes no real distinction between people entitled to an acquittal on the grounds of mental impairment and people who may have been quite mentally healthy and functioning normally at the time the offence was allegedly committed but are found unfit to plead when required to stand trial. This bill is simply about clarification and the introduction of a new system that will ensure that people who may have been quite mentally healthy and functioning normally at the time the offence was allegedly committed can be held criminally responsible for offences allegedly committed. The bill addresses difficulties relating to fitness to plead in criminal trials and a special hearing process established under the Crimes Act 1900 and the Mental Health Treatment and Care Act 1994. I think we all want a community here in the ACT where people who ought to be held responsible for their actions can be and will be.

Firstly, I would like to briefly address the matters raised in Scrutiny Report 45. I am pleased to see that the committee is of the view that the provisions of the bill appear not to trespass unduly, if at all, on the rights of the accused in respect of whom an issue about the consequences of a mental illness or dysfunction are raised. I appreciate the urgency that has been attached to this bill. I acknowledge the comments that have been made in relation to that, but I can and do indicate that the Discrimination Commissioner was consulted as part of the process of getting the bill to the Assembly today and had no comments to make on its content.

I have tabled a revised explanatory statement that addresses a number of the issues raised by the committee, particularly those relating to numbering and explanations. I make it clear now that it is the intention of the government for this bill to apply to all special hearings that take place after its commencement, regardless of when the offence was alleged to have been committed and regardless of when the accused was found unfit to plead.

The intention of the bill is not to codify or attempt to articulate the defences and the circumstances in which they can or cannot be raised in a special hearing. The bill is partly about providing clarification, which the Court of Appeal indicated the legislature

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