Page 400 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
could not possibly have known that the woman who suffered the injury, which led to their being charged with a simple offence, to which there was an aggravating aspect as a result of the passage of the Crimes (Offences Against Pregnant Women) Bill, was pregnant and would not have known in those circumstances.
On the basis of the very thorough commentary provided on this particular aspect of the bill by the scrutiny of bills committee, I thank the shadow attorney and other members of that committee for that very thorough report and for the recommendations contained within it on this particular aspect. I thank the shadow attorney for his chairmanship and for producing the report to which the government was prepared to respond positively in the way that I respond now. Thank you very much, Mr Stefaniak, for the wisdom of that report. It is a very thorough discussion of the issues.
The government is very pleased to accept your advice and, along with that, of course, the advice of members of the community, members of the legal profession and members of the civil liberties council. It is interesting that Mr Stefaniak, in this particular instance, in the provision of that scrutiny of bills report to the Assembly, is echoing similar concerns expressed by the profession broadly and by the civil liberties council. I have to say that it is one of those interesting moments in life that Mr Stefaniak is singing the same song and from the same song sheet as the civil liberties council. There is a similarly reflecting view or position put by members of the profession.
So the government is persuaded by the advocacy of the scrutiny of bills committee, by the civil liberties council and by members of the legal profession that there should be some acknowledgment of the need that there be a fault element or a capacity for a person charged with a particular offence to be able to plead, essentially, the lack of mens rea—in other words, that they simply did not know; they did not have in their mind any intention to commit that crime with which they have been charged because they simply had no advice or knowledge that the woman was pregnant. One of the elements that are fundamental to the defence to the particular offence is an intention to harm a woman who is pregnant.
I commend this particular amendment to members of the Assembly. Again, I am grateful to the scrutiny of bills committee and to its chair, the shadow attorney, for the report that they delivered; to the civil liberties council; and to other members of the community who responded with some concern on this fairly important and fundamental issue.
I might, by way of concluding the debate—this is the last occasion on which I will get to my feet—refer to the opposition’s motivation for the amendment which they have moved today and for their approach and attitude to this particular bill. It is notable that the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, a significant committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General—pre-eminently in terms of the criminal law, perhaps the most learned policy group that has been active within the last decade is, of course, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General—in a report on the model criminal code included a chapter on non-fatal offences against a person.
They referred to the Queensland law, on which the Liberal Party’s position is mirrored. The Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General referred to the intent in this way, at page 153:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .