Page 4110 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
sentenced by a court in relation to an offence, which would be a new offence, while they are subject to a non-association order or place restriction order in relation to another offence, an old offence, an offence for which they are currently serving.
Subclause (2) provides that, when sentencing that person for the new offence, the court may change or may revoke the non-association order or place restriction order for the old offence. The court may well feel that there needs to be another non-association order or another restriction order. It may feel that it is completely inappropriate because the new offence is so significant that the person is going to be sentenced to a lengthy time of imprisonment. There might be some other circumstances where the court may feel there is a need to revoke the non-association order or place restriction order. I commend the amendment to the Assembly. It would complete the new part 3.4.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.13): The Greens will be supporting this amendment. Proposed new clause 24A allows for the suspension of non-association order or place restriction order while an offender is in custody. I suppose this is implicit in the government’s legislation. But because it makes it explicit and clear that, while the offender is in custody they do not have the ability to associate with the person from whom they are banned, unless of course that person visits the offender or visits the place from which they are restricted, I will give this clause my support.
I also support proposed new clause 24B. The breach of a non-association order should attract a proportionate punishment. Otherwise there is no deterrence to such a breach. I also think that ignorance in this case should be a reasonable defence. The defences of reasonable excuse or an inadvertent breach that is immediately rectified are sound protections against unfair punishments.
To conclude, I support proposed new clause 24C as well. It provides a court with greater discretion in shaping its punishment regime in light of a breach of a non-association order.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (12.15): The government opposes the amendment. The government carefully considered non-association and place restriction orders and the provisions within the legislation were drafted after broad consultation.
The government believes that there is no demonstrated need for proposed new clauses 24A or 24C. There already exists, in fact, under clause 111 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Bill 2005, which we are debating cognately, the facility for a court to amend or discharge a non-association or place restriction order upon application or on its own initiative. This will allow the court to consider the circumstances of each and every individual case to determine if there is a demonstrated need for some variation. The capacity for a court to consider the appropriateness of continuing the orders upon sentencing for a subsequent offence is also covered by clause 111.
An automatic suspension, as proposed under new clause 24A, is not prudent and, the government submits, shows a lack of understanding of why such orders may be placed. For example, a court may have imposed the non-association order relating to a victim of crime. The offender bound by the order is subsequently charged with fresh offences and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .