Page 2526 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
… the system of jury trial is geared to enable juries to be assisted in every possible way to put out of mind statements made outside the court …
I say, just as an aside, that Mr Rattenbury has dealt, I think, quite well with the issues about protections for fair trial in the range of matters he outlined in his speech in principle, and the government concurs. I go back to what Chief Justice Stevens says:
… the system of jury trial is geared to enable juries to be assisted in every possible way to put out of mind statements made outside the court, whether in the media or elsewhere. There is every reason to have confidence in the capacity of juries to do this. Judges do not have a monopoly on the ability to adjudicate fairly and impartially.
I repeat what he said:
Judges do not have a monopoly on the ability to adjudicate fairly and impartially. Every Australian worthy of citizenship can be relied upon to discharge properly and responsibly his duty as a juror.
I note that Chief Justice says “his” but of course it is “his” or “her”. He goes on to state:
Particularly is this so in the context of being one of a number or group of others all similarly charged with this responsible duty. I have great faith in the multiple wisdom and balance reflected in the verdict of a jury.
The government concurs, Mr Assistant Speaker. For these reasons, the Liberal Party’s proposals will not be agreed to by the government today. It will simply result in a continuation of the status quo with a high rate of election for judge-alone trials. It will only contribute further to undermining community confidence in the criminal justice system, a confidence that can be enhanced with a reassertion of the vital role of juries at the centre of the most serious matters that a person can be charged with.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.14): As I alluded to earlier, the Greens will not be supporting the amendments proposed by Mrs Dunne. We do understand the issue that the amendments seek to address. However, the difference is that we believe there are five existing checks and balances that are already in place that adequately address the issue, as I outlined earlier, and I do not intend to go over them again at this point, particularly given the hour of the night.
I would, however, like to reiterate that we believe those checks provide confidence for the changes that this bill seeks to make. We do believe that a dispassionate and unbiased jury will be able to be found in the ACT. In that context we believe Mrs Dunne’s amendments are unnecessary.
We also have a concern that every time an additional application process is built into the law it raises the prospect of appeals and unintended consequences. Ironically, the 1993 reforms are an example of the unintended consequence. What was done with the intent of allowing at most a handful of judge-alone trials in actual fact resulted in 56
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video