Page 1611 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Act which we dealt with recently is one of those examples. We took what we thought was the responsible position of ensuring that we as a community are getting the best out of our courts and judges and that they are working as efficiently as possible before we add further tiers to the legal system.
So that is where we find ourselves today. Parts of this bill reflect the decision not to move to a district court but rather to seek better ways to use our current system. As I have indicated, we agree with the government’s idea that many cases carrying up to five years can be dealt with summarily. I think that is quite clear if one looks at the sort of cases that are going through. Often a penalty that potentially is very serious may well come in at the lesser end of the spectrum and is suitably dealt with at the level of the Magistrates Court because in some senses it is a like matter to many of the matters the Magistrates Court are dealing with, as I said, expertly and efficiently on a regular basis.
But we do believe that we need to put in place safeguards for the more serious matters, the matters at the end of the spectrum that could well attract a four or five-year term of imprisonment. We wanted to find a way through this that was both practical and just—practical in the sense of improving efficiency, not necessarily putting what might be considered relatively minor matters or less serious matters into the Supreme Court but ensuring that the Supreme Court is dealing with the most serious matters—but also to retain that element of justice, of thinking about the fact that somebody who does face up to four or five years of incarceration should have potentially the opportunity to be judged before a panel of their peers.
Without foreshadowing too much, as we will come to this in the detail stage, I believe that the model that will be proposed, that we have discussed extensively with Mrs Dunne and with the legal community, will deliver that in providing the Director of Public Prosecutions with an opportunity to send some matters to the Magistrates Court and, where that is not sought, for those more serious matters to go through to the Supreme Court with the prospect of a jury trial.
Mrs Dunne did touch on the collaborative work that has taken place. I similarly appreciate the spirit of that work. Unfortunately, some of the thinking on it has come quite late and we are not able to fully proceed today. But at the same time I think we are undertaking very serious reforms here and I feel more comfortable that we would take the time—some of this we were putting the finishing touches on this morning—to come in here this afternoon and present them. I would prefer to have the situation, and I appreciate Mrs Dunne agreeing to this, that we give the drafters time to just think through the final few steps.
We have the opportunity for the scrutiny of bills committee to look at the final version and also, for that matter, for the attorney to review the final version and use the resources of his department to ensure that there are perhaps not unintended consequences and there is an opportunity for that discussion to continue. It probably will not take four weeks; that is the time frame in which we sit again and so that is when we will come back to it. But I think that come May we will be able to pass this through the Assembly in an efficient and timely way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video