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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1185 ..

Schedule 5

Bail Amendment Bill 2003

Amendments moved by the Attorney-General

1

Clause 5

Proposed new section 8 (1) (e)

Page 4, line 21

omit

2

Clause 5

Proposed new section 8 (5)

Page 5, line 12

omit

3

Clause 5

Proposed new section 8A

Page 5, line 14—

insert

8A Entitlement  to bail—breaches of certain orders

(1) This section applies to a person who is arrested for, or in another way brought before the court in relation to, a breach of—

(a) a recognisance; or

(b) a community service order; or

(c) a home detention order; or

(d) a periodic detention order.

(2) The person has the same entitlement to be granted bail in relation to the breach of the order as the person has under this part in relation to the offence to which the order relates.

Examples

1 Martin has been found guilty of armed robbery and sentenced to periodic detention. He has breached the periodic detention order and is before the court on an application to cancel the order. There is no presumption in relation to bail because the offence of armed robbery is an offence to which division 2.2 (Presumption for bail) does not apply.

2 Joe has been found guilty of threatening to kill. Joe had, 3 years before, been found guilty of an offence involving violence. After serving part of his sentence of imprisonment for the offence of threatening to kill, he was released on entering into a recognisance. He has breached the recognisance and is before the court on an application to cancel the order for his release. There is no presumption in relation to bail because, section 9B (b) applies to make the offence of threatening to kill an offence to which division 2.2 (Presumption for bail) does not apply.

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