Page 23 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
bail matters are dealt with in the Magistrates Court—where we believe they will be dealt with expertly and efficiently.
This is an important change because, as is well known, our Supreme Court has become overwhelmed with work and a backlog of cases has built up. This has caused people to spend up to two years waiting for their case to come up in court, and we do believe this needs to be addressed.
Part of the build-up has been caused by more and more bail matters going to the Supreme Court, whereas once they were dealt with by the magistrates. The attorney has noted that in 2008 there was an 82 per cent increase in the number of bail reviews being carried out in the Supreme Court and that that workload has not receded since.
Part of the solution to this problem needs to be diverting more of the relatively minor, straightforward work to the Magistrates Court to free up the Supreme Court to focus on the most serious cases. We suggested to the attorney in August last year that reforms to the bail process could be part of this solution, and we are pleased to be addressing the bill today.
The reforms will require accused people to exhaust their bail applications in the Magistrates Court before allowing them to enter the Supreme Court This improves on the current process which sees many bail applications made to the Magistrates Court in the first couple of hours after arrest. It is, of course, human nature to try and get released at the very first opportunity. There often is not time to gather the required evidence and, more often than not, bail is refused.
The current legislation then allows a review to go direct to the Supreme Court, therefore tying up their time with what could have been dealt with by the Magistrates Court in an expert and efficient manner.
The new process will require a second application and then a review application to be heard in the Magistrates Court before allowing the matter to go to the Supreme Court. All up, this means that an accused person will need to have their bail matter heard three times before a magistrate before being able to appeal to the Supreme Court.
We think this process is both practical and just. We think it is practical because it will allow for most matters to be dealt with by the magistrates, who are well placed to deal with them expertly and efficiently. It makes good sense to make use of that expertise and experience that the magistrates build up in regularly addressing these sorts of matters.
We think it is just because it allows for quicker access to justice and strengthens the rights of accused people to be heard without unreasonable delay. It also retains the ultimate right of appeal through to the Supreme Court for those cases that warrant it—those cases where more complex legal matters arise beyond the usual considerations for a bail application.
In conclusion, the Greens support this bill. As I said, we believe it is a practical and just response to the problems of delays in our courts.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video