Page 4235 - Week 11 - Thursday, 17 Sept 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
legislation. I thank the attorney for enabling us to meet with staff from the Department of Justice and Community Safety to talk through these specific issues. I also thank staff from the department for their clear and concise advice and the useful discussion we did have with them.
One of the concerns is of particular importance and I would like to raise it now. I raise it because it points not only to the bill before the Assembly today but also to legislative issues that may come up in the future in the ACT. The issue is one of journalistic reporting of events that are of public importance and in the public interest. This relates to issues of freedom of expression.
The concern that was put to me was that the operation of the proposed section 37 may be too wide and preclude reporting of criminal investigations in the future. The concern was that even once a trial had concluded and the assumed identity had come to an end under section 10, or been cancelled under section 14, journalists would be prevented from reporting the facts of the case. This scenario went beyond the intent of the section, which is to restrict prejudicing a trial.
What we were able to discuss in our meeting with JACS staff was the importance of the word “reveals” in the proposed section 37(1)(a). A lot hinges on that word because after the true identity of the police officer is revealed during the trial when they give evidence, there is nothing to “reveal” any more. What this means is that an element of the crime would not be fulfilled and journalists are able to report on the matter free in the knowledge that they are not committing a crime.
The Greens agree with the operation of this section in that it will preclude reporting in the time up until the assumed identity becomes publicly revealed. The intent of the offence is to ensure that those operating under assumed identities can continue operating under their assumed identity in relation to an investigation up until their identity is revealed at trial.
I flagged earlier that this specific issue raises an important point around legislative changes that we may see introduced in the ACT in the future. The issue is one of suppression of police identities at trial. As I have discussed, the bill before the Assembly today is in line with the work of the joint working group’s papers. In particular, the working group has produced a model bill on assumed identities, which this bill today draws on heavily.
There are a number of other closely related model bills in existence, one of which provides for the suppression of the true identity of police officers at trial. I note here for the record that should the government decide to act on these suppression laws, the Greens will be scrutinising this very closely. At this stage, I would have concerns. The suppression of the true identity of someone giving evidence at trial raises questions about the right to a fair trial and in particular the right to know the identity of those accusing you and providing evidence against you.
The heart of the issue is maintaining the credibility and trustworthiness of evidence used at trial. The link to the specific scenario discussed earlier is that if an identity was suppressed at trial then the concerns about journalistic reporting would come to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .