Page 1614 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
While the jury trial plays an important role in the criminal justice system, and is indeed a matter that I am pursuing in relation to serious matters in the Supreme Court, trial by jury is not a prerequisite component of the right to fair trial. The right to fair trial, as propounded in the international conventions and as formulated under the Human Rights Act, is concerned with the appropriateness of the adjudicative action, not the nature of the decision maker.
ACT magistrates meet the fair trial requirements of competent, independent and impartial adjudication. Through their demonstrated ability to deal summarily with a broad range of offences by consent, including indictable offences with greater penalties than those affected by the proposed increase to exclusive jurisdiction, their experience in sentencing defendants in these matters and their knowledge of the law, I have no doubt that magistrates possess the skills and experience to competently hear cases which would fall within their sole jurisdiction as a result of the proposed reforms. I have not heard any argument to the contrary from those in this place.
Increasing the summary jurisdiction supports the right to fair trial by upholding a key element of the fair trial, that is, right to a trial within a reasonable period and without undue delay. The current backlog of the Supreme Court is causing trials to be listed up to 24 months after the person is committed for trial. The right to fair trial is severely compromised by undue delays in hearing and finalisation of criminal matters. As structural reform of the court system was not supported by the Liberals and the Greens in this place, the government is obliged to take alternative action, which includes increasing the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court.
The increased summary jurisdiction promotes greater accessibility to court proceedings through timely hearings. The rights to legal advice and representation, right to a public hearing and the right to an interpreter are unaffected by the proposed reforms. Procedural guarantees associated with the right to fair trial, such as the opportunity for defendants to present their case, are bolstered by ensuring defendants are brought before the court more promptly and are not left with the uncertainty of a lengthy remand period. This does not seem to be of such concern for other members.
A detailed analysis of how the bill supports the right to fair trial, including references to the relevant international law and commentary, is contained in the supplementary explanatory statement which I have previously provided to members but which I now table for the information of the Assembly. I table the following paper:
Supplementary explanatory statement to the bill.
The reforms contained in this bill will reduce the workload in the Supreme Court and cases will be heard in the most appropriate forum. The Supreme Court will be able to get on with the job of dealing with the most serious cases, as is the case in most other Australian jurisdictions. Court data from 2009-10 financial year indicates that 21 out of 78 Supreme Court cases, that is 26 per cent, would have been diverted to Magistrates Courts under reforms contained in the government’s bill. These reforms would also have the significant effect on the present delays being experienced in bringing matters to trial. As I have mentioned previously, some defendants are waiting up to and beyond 24 months before committal and trial. The government is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video