Page 4156 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
awfully sorry.” That might put a tick in the box for demonstrating remorse but how can one be certain that that is real or otherwise?
One of the most effective ways of demonstrating remorse is in fact to try to make some reparation, be it a tangible thing or be it perhaps in some other way. My amendment to paragraph (g) states:
the offender has shown remorse for the offence by making reparation for any injury, loss or damage or in any other way;
In other words, the offender has shown that they have done something, whether in the traditional way of making reparation for an injury, loss or damage—something tangible—or perhaps in some other way that we do not stipulate but we leave up to a court, to prove that they have shown remorse. So effectively the amendment keeps everything we have in relation to reparation for injury, et cetera, but also it ensures that that is used to show remorse. I think the words “or in any other way” are a general coverall that effectively take care of what is in paragraph (v). However, it ensures that the offender has to have done something. The offender has to show that he or she is genuinely remorseful and it is not just some act. Accordingly, that is the rationale behind those two paragraphs and I think that is particularly important for victims.
Amendment No 6 refers to cultural background. Whilst superficially you can see a logic in what is contained in the bill—this is something that has been in the old Crimes Act for some decades—when you look at more recent acts you can see that there are problems. There are problems with the Discrimination Act in that under, I think, section 7, you cannot discriminate in relation to ethnicity, cultural background, et cetera. Similarly, I think there might well be some problem with the Human Rights Act. So I think the bill now before us is actually inconsistent with a couple of other government acts. Again, is it something that a court must take into account? The court does have to take into account a wide range of things but I think the government might find that what is contained in this legislation is somewhat inconsistent with some of its other acts.
Amendment No 7 relates to paragraph (n) of subclause (1). Victims have raised very strongly issues which relate to paragraph (n), which states:
the probable effect that any sentence or order under consideration would have on any of the offender’s family or dependants;
Amendment No 8 is concerned with paragraph (q), which states:
whether the recording of a conviction or the imposition of a particular penalty would be likely to cause particular hardship to the offender;
The attitude of victims and other people associated with the system is that the defendant should have to take some responsibility for their own action. Maybe a court might want to consider that effect. The key word here is that the court “must”, rather than perhaps “may”, consider those matters if they are known to the court. I would have no problem if it were “may”, and I think a lot of victims would not either. But at the end of the day the probable effect the sentence will have on the offender or indeed his family is the offender’s fault. The offender has committed the crime and whether what is in the paragraph should be a consideration that has to be taken into account by the court is of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .