Page 723 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
exception to when a child or a young person is taken to be under restraint within the meaning of that section. A person aged between 16 and 18 years will not be taken to be under restraint where police are questioning them with a view to issuing them with an infringement notice for the offences listed in the section. The operative provision, section 78, affords an important protection for children and young people who are under restraint, ensuring that any admissions or statements made by the child or young person during the course of an investigation are made voluntarily.
The exceptions to situations where a person is under restraint in clause 4 will cease to apply if the police officer is no longer of the view that it is not appropriate to proceed by way of an infringement notice or it becomes apparent that another offence requires investigation. In these situations, the young person would be under restraint and the relevant protections will apply. If, during an investigation, police suspect that a young person may have committed more than one offence and one of those offences can be dealt with by way of an infringement notice and others cannot, the young person in will be considered to be under restraint and the exceptions in proposed new subsection (4) to section 77 (6) will not apply.
The bill amends the Magistrates Court Act by creating a specific regulation making power to apply in respect of when an authorised person can be taken to have reasonable grounds for a belief that an infringement notice offence has been committed. The regulations made under the Magistrates Court Act will clearly list the four offences to be made liable to infringement notices. The regulations will also specifically limit the application of these infringement notices to persons over 16 years of age.
The passage of this legislation, together with regulations under the Magistrates Court Act, will create the necessary machinery to allow for police officers, inspectors of licensed premises and city rangers to issue infringement notices for four separate minor offences. As I have indicated previously, I have written to the ACT Ombudsman asking him to report to the government on the operation of the scheme, following 12 months of operation, on matters relating to the issue of these infringement notices. I ask the Assembly to note that I have specifically asked the ombudsman to report to the government on how these infringement notices are impacting on young people.
I would like to address some of the criticisms made by Mr Stefaniak and other members about the government’s decision not to include certain other offences. I draw to the Assembly’s attention a couple of matters raised by the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs report on strict and absolute liability offences, which provides some very useful commentary on when strict liability is appropriate. Until recently the committee was chaired by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Seselja; this report was produced whilst Mr Stefaniak was chair of the committee. The committee says:
… the process of deciding whether to introduce strict liability for an offence should recognise that this may have adverse effects upon those affected; the legitimate rights of these people should be paramount and take precedence over administrative convenience and perceived cost savings in program administration …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .