Page 3957 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 12 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
now a convicted murderer of Colin Stanley Winchester, throwing a glass jug at a magistrate. The jug narrowly missed him. It shattered, and I think some court staff might have got a few slivers of glass. I think perhaps the magistrate was so shocked that nothing happened, but quite clearly that was an appalling contempt of court, apart from being a very serious assault on a judicial officer and court staff. Since then I think plastic jugs have been used in court. That was probably one of the most obvious examples of a contempt of court. It might be one of the charges still hanging over Mr Eastman, who I understand is subject to about 100 charges on various matters pending final resolution of more major matters.
Another issue relates to circle sentencing. This amendment puts beyond doubt the ability of the Magistrates Court to give a practice direction in relation to circle sentencing. Again, that seems sensible. There may not be a huge problem, but it is timely to put these issues beyond doubt.
The rules and procedures in the Court Legislation Act are due to commence on 1 January in the Magistrates Court, the circle sentence court and the Small Claims Court. It is essential that we get it right. For the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, the new rules came into play on 1 July. As I said at the time the substantive bill was debated and passed, it was a very thorough piece of work by a lot of people and took some two or three years. I commend everyone involved, in particular the court staff. I appreciate—I think I said so at the time—the briefing the scrutiny of bills committee got from Justice Terry Connolly in relation to the matter. A lot of effort went into these rules from all sides of the profession, including our judicial officers. This ensures the outcome and puts those issues beyond doubt.
The latest mention I have heard of circle sentencing—I hope it has not changed—is that, whilst it is incredibly time consuming, it is also very effective. Of the 15 or so people who have been through it—who have been dealt with and had their matter finalised—I understand that only one has re-offended. When you look at some of the earlier re-offending rates for those sorts of offences, involving perhaps those types of people, that is particularly promising. I was quite supportive of the concept at the time; I am delighted it seems to have gone well. I do not know what you do about trying to truncate the process. It is, by its very nature, a fairly lengthy process. But if it has that effect, that is very good.
Anything that can lead to people not re-offending is to be applauded. It is timely that these little glitches are sorted out so that the Magistrates Court and the Small Claims Court can have the benefit of changes to the rules and standardisation across jurisdictions. The arrangements will be hot to trot from 1 January 2007. The opposition is happy to support this bill.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.05): The Court Legislation Amendment Bill clarifies and codifies the contempt powers of the Magistrates Court and the Coroner’s Court. Even if these amendments have been drafted in an abundance of caution, given the possible ambiguity surrounding the scope of the various courts’ contempt powers, they are a sensible initiative. The bill also assists in the realisation of the uniform provisions of the Court Procedures Act; again, I welcome the government’s actions in this regard.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .