Page 2193 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
system in the ACT, referring to bail applications and applications for the suspension of bail in particular cases. This is what this matter is. The matter that I attempted to quote from is one of three decisions made by the Supreme Court in relation to a particular matter.
I made it perfectly clear at the outset that I was not going to refer in any way to the matters of last week. These events occurred between 2008 and 2011 and relate to bail and the application for bail. They do not relate to the matters which are currently before the courts.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mrs Dunne. Mrs Dunne, I believe that this is a case where we would apply this rule because this man’s previous criminal history will be taken into account. He is before the court at the moment and therefore I think that it is imprudent for you to mention any of his previous criminal history in your debate. So I would ask you not to do that and refer in general to points about bail requirements but not particular matters in regard to this particular person.
Dissent from ruling
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.17), by leave: I move:
That the Deputy Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling because this is a most serious matter for the people of the ACT, and I think that you have failed to understand the distinction which I took particular pains to make about this matter. I have not even mentioned this person’s name and I have no intention of doing so. But it is crystal clear in a number of judgements in relation to the application for bail under the Bail Act that there is a strong history of failure in relation to bail that may have brought us to a situation that resulted in a tragedy last week.
I have been at particular pains—and I will refresh your memory, Madam Deputy Speaker—in what I said about this matter. I said that the matter was immediate and raw and would be subject to legal action. I will not be addressing last week’s incident outside the Canberra Hospital. And I reinforced that when I came back to the issue and said: “I will not be reflecting on the circumstances involving the incident outside the Canberra Hospital. Suffice it to say that the young man involved is well known to police, prosecutors and the court.”
However, that being said and making it very clear that this motion is not about the incident last week but about the failure of the bail system, it is reasonable to refer to one of the more high-profile cases where we have seen a failure of the bail system. And in this case there were a number of times and a number of charges brought before the courts where prosecutors pleaded for this person not to be granted bail and time and again the court system granted this young man bail. It is on the public record for every person in the world to read.
Somehow your ruling today says that everyone can read this but I may not quote from it in the ACT Legislative Assembly. This is a misuse of the sub judice rule. This is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video