Page 5273 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
views in relation to how that should be managed. For example, options such as a Copenhagen style lane—that is a separated but on-road cycling lane—does raise issues that need to be resolved in relation to verge parking, loading zones and so on. That does have a direct impact on businesses operating in the area and we need to talk those issues through with those stakeholders before a final decision is taken in relation to what the preferred design is for Bunda Street.
Crime—penalty for manslaughter
MR DOSZPOT: My question is to the Attorney-General and it relates to the currently maximum penalty of 20 years for the offence of manslaughter. Attorney, on 27 October 2011 you told the Assembly that, in his evidence to the JACS committee in its inquiry into the Crimes (Murder) Amendment Bill 2008, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that “the current penalty is appropriate”. You went on to say:
The DPP has since reconfirmed his position that he believes the current penalty for manslaughter is appropriate.
The Hansard transcript of the relevant JACS committee hearing does not appear to report a definitive statement from the DPP about the adequacy of the current penalties. He said:
I prefer to do any commentary on the level of sentences through the courts.
He continued:
I think that is the better way for DPP to give its commentary on level of sentences, rather than to pontificate upon it in committees.
Attorney, can you point to the evidence of the DPP, given to the JACS committee, that stated that the DPP considered the current penalty is appropriate?
MR CORBELL: I do not have any advice in front of me in relation to the detail of that quite detailed exchange Mr Doszpot is asking me about. I will need to check the record and see exactly what occurred in that discussion, which I think, if I recall the question correctly, occurred three years ago. I will do that and take the question on notice.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Doszpot, a supplementary.
MR DOSZPOT: Attorney, will you table in the Assembly by the close of business this day the DPP’s subsequent confirmation that the DPP believes the current penalty for manslaughter is appropriate?
MR CORBELL: I will take the question on notice.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, a supplementary.
MR SESELJA: Attorney, have you misled the Assembly? If not, in what way do your statements to the Assembly reflect the evidence and views of the DPP? If yes, will you now apologise and correct the record?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video