Page 433 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that the ACT penalty for this offence is significantly out of step with penalties throughout the rest of Australia. The current ACT penalty of 50 penalty units, or six months imprisonment, or both, is the same level of penalty that is applied to a range of regulatory offences in various pieces of ACT legislation. For example, it is the same penalty as applies to the offence under the Egg Act of wrongly labelling eggs for sale. Obviously, a hit and run offence is a higher order offence for which the community would expect a higher maximum penalty.
The review undertaken showed that all other jurisdictions had a maximum penalty of at least one year’s imprisonment for the equivalent offence. The penalties ranged up to 10 years imprisonment in New South Wales and Victoria. The bill increases the maximum penalty for the ACT offence from 50 penalty units and/or six months imprisonment to 200 penalty units and/or two years imprisonment. The government agreed on this penalty to accord with its criminal law policy on penalty setting. The increased maximum penalty would better reflect the seriousness of the offence and give our courts an appropriate sentencing range in which to deal with offenders. As I have previously informed the Assembly, the only change affected in relation to this offence at this stage is to change the maximum penalty that can be imposed. The substance of the offence and its interrelationship with any other ACT laws is not proposed to be changed.
I have previously noted that by increasing the maximum penalty to imprisonment for two years, the offence becomes an offence which may, if the defendant so chooses, be dealt with on indictment in the Supreme Court. The present offence is a summary offence only as the imprisonment term which can be imposed does not exceed one year and, therefore, the offence can currently be dealt with only by the Magistrates Court. It is my understanding that the ACT has several prosecutions for this offence each year and it could be expected that in future a number of these would be dealt with in the Supreme Court as a result of the penalty increase.
In essence, it elevates the whole notion of the offence from that which can be dealt with by the Magistrates Court to that which can be dealt with by the Supreme Court. I think that is a significant and a salient point. In my opinion contributing to the loss of somebody’s life, or disabling somebody permanently for the rest of his or her life, ought to be a matter that is dealt with by the Supreme Court. I would like to thank officers from the Department of Territory and Municipal Services for their work in bringing this bill forward and I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill 2006
Debate resumed from 14 December 2006, on motion by Mr Hargreaves:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .