Page 2515 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Let me briefly outline those views. The Victims of Crime Assistance League raised questions about the impact of the increased penalties on the cost of managing the prison and prisoners and on prisoner rehabilitation, and about whether some of the increased revenue from penalties should be redirected to victims of crime services. The government’s response? Nil.
The Australian Federal Police Association pointed out the serious flaw in the bill. It sets up a process for routine applications for judge-alone trials because it allows a change of mind even against a real possibility that the identity of the trial judge is known at the time. The government’s response? Nothing.
The Director of Public Prosecutions put forward some options, pointing out the pros and cons of those options. The government’s response? None.
The Bar Association considers the select list of offences that must be dealt with only by jury trial to be arbitrary in the extreme. It wonders why, for example, a grievous bodily harm or terrorism offence could not be regarded as serious. Why is it that the Labor Party and the Greens believe that alleged terrorists should be able to elect for a judge-alone trial? How can they justify supporting allowing an alleged terrorist to continue to choose whether or not they have a judge-alone trial, with no ability for the courts to determine the matter? That is why this bill is flawed. It is flawed at both ends.
Chief Justice Higgins, as Mrs Dunne has noted, said the same. How does the government respond to this? It does not. So how does Mr Corbell intend to deal with the situation where, for example, there is a murder of bikie gang leaders, as happened in Sydney a couple of years ago? His bill would require a trial heard before a jury even if there is a real risk that juries might be tampered with by way of intimidation or threats. The justice system would have no recourse to protect potential jurors from intimidation or threats. By contrast, under Mr Corbell’s proposal, an accused terrorist would have the option to elect for a judge-alone trial and there will be no process for stopping that if it is not in the interests of justice.
The Law Society made a lengthy submission to the Attorney-General last Friday. The society sent a copy to Mrs Dunne. In summary, its position is that it would prefer the status quo to remain. However, recognising that change is inevitable, its preference is for a scheme akin to the model that operates in Western Australia. The society’s submission is so well considered and researched that Mrs Dunne sought and obtained consent from the society for the Canberra Liberals to table the submission for the benefit of members and the community generally. I seek leave to table the submission dated 17 June 2011 made by the ACT Law Society to the Attorney-General.
Leave granted.
MR SESELJA: I table the following paper:
Criminal Proceedings Legislation Amendment Bill 2011—Copy of letter from the President, ACT Law Society, to the Attorney-General, dated 17 June 2011.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video