Page 3531 - Week 09 - Thursday, 21 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the amendment. There is an indication that the government will be making its own changes to the court rules later on to provide for visibility of body language and demeanour. I have no choice but to accept its decision, but I do hope to see these changes to the court rules soon.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (9.04): If Dr Foskey keeps foreshadowing the government’s position I will not have to say anything.
Dr Foskey: I can read your mind!
MR CORBELL: The government does agree that it is very important that the witness’s demeanour and body language are visible to the people or person viewing the recording. That is why the government has invested significantly in new audiovisual technology—indeed, a multi-million-dollar package—to provide for high-quality audiovisual presentation of witnesses’ evidence that is given remotely. That includes high-quality television screens or monitors, an off-site witness facility and so on.
However, the advice I have, and which I accept, is that it is not necessary to provide for these procedural requirements in the legislation. Indeed, they will be addressed, as Dr Foskey has indicated, through the court procedure rules, and I believe that is an appropriate place for them. But the intention is clear and the government’s intention, for the record, is that I would expect somebody who is giving evidence remotely to be able to be presented effectively and as close as possible to the manner that they would present if they were in the witness box. That is the intention of the government’s reforms and its investment in the technology.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (9.05): Obviously, the attorney has the numbers so something will happen there. The opposition will be supporting Dr Foskey’s amendment. I suppose it is difficult for Dr Foskey in that she does not have the numbers, but it is terribly important to, as best you can, ensure that a witness’s demeanour and body language are visible to whoever is viewing the recording. That is a very important part, especially for a jury. I think it is rather sad that people are opting not to have jury trials in the ACT. They do so for a very good reason—they are much more likely to be acquitted. That is a systemic problem in our courts and it is something the attorney has said he will address, and we certainly will if he does not. That is for another day.
Whilst this legislation as a whole is so important, because the pendulum has swung far too much in favour of the accused rather than the victim, in sexual assault cases it certainly has been the case, on occasions, that someone will maliciously take someone to court, make a complaint and might be quite convincing. Demeanour and body language are terribly important in that regard, certainly for jury and also for any judicial officer. So Dr Foskey has made a very valid point and we are happy to support it. We note what the attorney has said. Whilst this amendment will go down, it is something that will be picked up by the government in some way. We think that is certainly desirable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .