Page 2592 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Under the docket system, each judicial officer will manage their docket with a view to encouraging early and efficient resolution of matters. The adoption of a docket system will assist the court to take control of cases to make the best use of the time and resources available to it. Consultation with other jurisdictions during the review process confirmed that judicial control over case management functions, including listing, is essential to improving court efficiency. Docket systems have been successfully implemented in the United States and locally in the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court, where they have all been proven to improve efficiency.
Another major change announced by the court was an expansion of the existing requirements for the exchange of material in criminal matters. The new requirements are designed to ensure that the prosecution has properly considered its position and that the defence is fully aware of the prosecution case before the matter is assigned to a docket judge. Therefore, the bill contains three main amendments to assist the court to implement these proposed changes.
Firstly, the bill contains amendments to the Supreme Court Act to provide that the election for a judge-alone trial must be made before any time limit prescribed under the court procedure rules. This will allow the timing of elections to be better matched to court processes that will exist under the new docket system. Accordingly, the existing requirement for the election to be made before the court allocates a date for the person’s trial will be removed. The amendments keep the requirement that an election must occur prior to the identity of the trial judge being known to the accused or to his or her legal representatives.
The second set of amendments that the bill contains is to the framework for ordering and preparing pre-sentence reports in the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. Amendments clarify that the Magistrates Court can order a pre-sentence report at the time they commit an offender to be sentenced in the Supreme Court. The amendments also remove a provision in the act dealing with the distribution of pre-sentence reports from the courts to the parties. This is a procedural matter which would be more appropriately dealt with in the court procedures rules.
Finally, the bill contains amendments to the Crimes (Sentencing) Act to permit a reduced sentence to be imposed where an offender has facilitated the administration of justice by cooperating to ensure that the trial is focused as efficiently as possible on the real issues in dispute. New section 35A enables a court to impose a lesser penalty, including a shorter, non-parole period, on an offender than it would otherwise have imposed having regard to the degree of assistance provided in the administration of justice.
The provision is designed to encourage cooperation by ensuring that the trial is focused as efficiently as possible on the real issues in dispute. The provision will extend to allowing a reduced sentence to be imposed where an offender, while maintaining a not guilty plea through to trial, has nevertheless facilitated the administration of justice through pre-trial disclosures, disclosures made during trial or otherwise. It is worth noting that a similar provision already exists in New South
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video