Page 925 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Public Prosecutions where a young man had been convicted of culpable driving causing death where two other young people died that the sentence was reasonable because of the maximum sentencing range available under current ACT law.
It was incumbent upon the government and ultimately the Assembly to have regard to what the Court of Appeal said on that matter. As a result, this Assembly, by a majority, agreed to increase the maximum penalty available for that offence, recognising that lifting the maximum would also lift the mid-range sentence available to a court. That addressed directly the issues raised by the Court of Appeal when it rejected the DPP’s appeal in relation to that particular case.
This was not an instance of simply adjusting sentences to make them comparable with other jurisdictions. It was a case of responding to a specific decision by the superior court having regard to community sentiment around what was a reasonable sentence for a circumstance where a young man drove so recklessly and so dangerously that two of his friends were killed. That was the question at hand, and I believe in all of the circumstances it was an entirely appropriate response. But it was not the response suggested in Ms Hunter’s contribution earlier.
Let me turn to some other areas where the government uses an evidence-based response. The child sex offenders amendment legislation was introduced on 16 February this year. One of the most important purposes of this scheme and its amending bill is to reduce the likelihood that registered offenders will reoffend and to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of any future offences that registered offenders may commit. These purposes have the overall goal of reducing sexual crimes against children in the ACT.
One of the approaches proposed by this bill is a prohibition order scheme. The scheme will allow ACT Policing to apply to the Magistrates Court for an order to prevent a registered offender from engaging in certain conduct where the conduct is posing a risk to the lives or sexual safety of a child. The prohibition order scheme is based on evidence that indicates that a significant proportion of child sex offenders will reoffend. This evidence was discussed in the explanatory statement for the bill.
The application and enforcement process of this prohibition order scheme also rely on an evidence-based approach. The Magistrates Court can only make a prohibition order if satisfied on evidence provided by ACT Policing that the registered offender has engaged in concerning conduct, and that, on the evidence submitted, the registered offender is posing a risk to the lives or sexual safety of a child.
Let me turn to another example—the cross-border legislation. During the Seventh Assembly, the government introduced four bills in relation to cross-border investigations to promote crime reduction through controlled operations and related activities. The acts adopted were the Crimes (Controlled Operations) Act, the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act, the Crimes (Surveillance Devices) Act and the Crimes (Protection of Witness Identity) Act.
The creation of these laws was based on extensive and thoroughly considered evidence. The task of developing the model laws was given to the national joint
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video