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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2619 ..

Common assault is the lowest form of assault. Basically, common assault would cover someone who feels they are very badly threatened. There does not even have to be physical contact. Common assault would include, for example, slapping someone across the face; pouring a bucket of water over someone; or pushing someone. It covers cases where the skin is not broken or muscular damage is not caused. If someone breaks the skin, punches someone and breaks their nose, gives them a bleeding lip, that is assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which carries a five-year term of imprisonment.

What the government has done here means that cases of summary basic assault can now be dealt with solely in the Magistrates Court. I have spoken to the DPP and they are very happy about this. Indeed, I think the police have no real problems either—it is sufficient for them as well. Basically, the defendant will not have the option of saying, “I’d like my day in court. I’d like to have a jury. I’d like to waste everyone’s time and cost the community tens of thousands of dollars.”

So I think this measure is probably fairly sensible. There are precedents for this. A number of years ago a section was put in the Crimes Act—I think section 90 or thereabouts—in relation to property worth less than $1,000, and that too could be dealt with summarily, with six months imprisonment being the maximum. There were some problems in relation to the timeframe it took to bring that action. I understand there is a timeframe of 24 months. I think this is something we need to look at because sometimes it is impossible to bring these types of charges within, say, a six-month period, as was the case with basic larceny, particularly in relation to shoplifting offences. I think that has been attended to.

I certainly will be looking closely to ensure that there are not any timeframe problems. It is quite reasonable for the prosecution to bring charges down the track if the person to be charged cannot be found. I think restrictive timeframes in these types of more minor matters that should be dealt with in the Magistrates Court can be a problem.

But that being said, this provision is quite sensible. We will probably see a lot more justice done. I was particularly concerned to see a decision recently in the Supreme Court in relation to assault that had everyone scratching their heads about how on earth in a judge-alone-trial the person was not convicted. Looking at the facts of the situation as reported in the paper and talking to people in the profession, I do scratch my head.

I think summary justice in minor matters of assault will probably be well served by this provision. I am quite pleased to see that, and the consultations I have had indicate that the profession is pretty happy with that, too.

I have a greater concern in relation to the Ombudsman Act, and I will address that during the detail stage. But we need to be very careful—and I would assume this government especially would want to be very careful—about taking away people’s rights. Funnily enough, we are seeing a fair bit of that in a number of areas since the Human Rights Act has been passed—in some instances quite properly so; in other instances you think, “Well, maybe, not quite properly so.” I do have some significant concerns, which have not been allayed by the briefings I have had, in relation to the Ombudsman Act. I will address that in a little more detail when we come to the detail stage. But we are certainly

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