Page 3530 - Week 09 - Thursday, 21 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
more difficult task. However, the presence of the traditional media in the courtroom provides an additional standard of accountability which may add some level of comfort to those who have some concerns with this legislation as we move down this path. The government will be supporting it.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (9.00): The opposition will also be supporting this amendment. The court can still close the court when it has to. Courts have always had that ability and this bill gives them that ability. Clearly, there are accountability issues. I think it is often in the interests of everyone and, indeed, I think it would be quite beneficial to the victim, in terms of the healing process, to have the matter in the media. Of course, the media is sensitive to names. Our media do that regularly here, so it seems to be a reasonably sensible amendment. The opposition will be supporting it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (9.01): I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name [see schedule 4 at page 3556].
This bill makes some significant changes to evidence requirements and places a lot of emphasis on the use of audiovisual recordings of witnesses. Using these recordings as evidence to take the pressure off witnesses in the court arena is well intentioned. Although concerns have been expressed about the use of these recordings to the exclusion of other types of evidence, I do support their use in some circumstances. However, to ensure that judges and the jury are given the full amount of information available from such a medium, I have proposed this amendment to ensure that as much of the witness making the statement is as visible as possible.
Body language has been recognised by many experts and agencies as important in assessing a witness’s reliability and credibility. If the witness were giving this statement in court, the judge and/or the jury would be able to view and evaluate every aspect of their demeanour. Regardless of the credibility we give to the value of body language in revealing underlying mental states, we all make these assessments subconsciously, anyway. It is an integral part of human communication. Denying the judge and the jury the opportunity to see the body language of a witness serves no useful purpose and is an unnecessary denial of the right of an accused to a fair trial.
Under the government’s amendments as they stand, the witness’s face will be visible to the judge and the jury as well as to the accused. My amendment merely seeks to ensure that audiovisual evidence is as close as possible to the testimony that the judge and/or jury could expect to see if the witness were actually present in court.
Discussions with the Attorney-General’s office have indicated that, while the government supports the intent of this amendment, it does not support the wording of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .