Page 2513 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The ANU’s submission stated:
Criminal justice claims to represent the public and do justice in the public interest. Juries represent one of the few ways in which the public actually are involved in the justice process.
Later in their submission they said:
… the involvement of juries in the criminal justice system is therefore a critical element to its claims to legitimacy, a crucial means of bringing community opinion into the justice process, an important mechanism for informing public opinion, and a key platform for building community confidence in the fair administration of justice. We strongly support this amendment.
In contrast, and to ensure balance in this debate, the University of Canberra cited concerns about the prejudicial pre-trial media and concluded:
… there does not appear to be any sound basis for excluding cases resulting in death and sexual offences from the scope of offence which may be tried by judge alone.
This is the nature of reform in the justice portfolio. I think the fact that the two universities in this town did come to such different conclusions demonstrates the difficulty, the strong views that are held in this area and, frankly, the fact that there is not always an absolutely correct answer. One has to make a call of judgement. I think it is fairer, more honest and more accurate to acknowledge it in this way rather than some of the wild theories that Mrs Dunne degenerated to in the latter part of her speech, but 10 out of 10 for creativity, Mrs Dunne—and I am glad you are so interested in my social diary.
Differing views are put and members here in the Assembly are required to assess all the arguments and come to a conclusion. We do have to make these difficult decisions at times, and lawyers’ groups also do not have a wholly unified position in response to the bill. I will not compare and contrast their positions, nor will I perhaps selectively quote from them as Mrs Dunne has chosen to, because some have been circulated in writing to members and others made to my office and via the telephone, but I choose not to bring those in here in a selective way.
What we can draw from the view of the lawyers and the academics is that members need to weigh all the evidence and make their decision on the bill. In conclusion, the decision of the ACT Greens is that the bill is necessary, it is responsible, there are the checks and balances that make this model viable and on that basis we will be supporting it.
It is necessary because we have seen the trend towards more and more judge-alone trials. We know this was not what was intended in 1993 when the changes were made and we accept the need to adjust the current system. The issue does need to be addressed because juries are important to our criminal justice system. They are important to defendants, to the victims and to the community more broadly. The bill
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video