Page 2761 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I will outline the grounds for government opposition to this bill. Firstly, the government has traditionally resisted offences such as those proposed by the Liberals because punishing an offence against one class of person more severely than others risks sending a message that some people or groups of people in the community are more valued than others. It is not appropriate in the ACT legislative context for aggravated offences with higher penalties to single out particular classes of victims. What the Liberals’ bill does is single out all police officers above similar emergency service workers, such as paramedics or firefighters.
I am not suggesting that police officers do not bear the brunt of inexcusable behaviour from members of the community, because they do. But I would also like to recognise that there are other professions in the territory that also see this type of behaviour. These professions include people like paramedics and firefighters. But through the Liberals’ bill it is proposed that police should deserve more protection than, say, another form of emergency response worker who puts themselves in dangerous circumstances to help another person.
The government is of the view that existing penalties adequately address the most serious examples of offences against the person, in particular following amendments made in late 2011 to the Crimes Act. Offences including intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and negligently causing grievous bodily harm were all amended to ensure the penalties reflected the seriousness of the criminal behaviour. These amendments were made with the support of the opposition. If the maximum penalties for these offences are insufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offences then they are insufficient for all victims, not just a select few or even just a single group.
The report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety’s inquiry refers to the submission of the ACT Human Rights Commission on this subject, which notes that the bill’s explanatory statement assumes that if an offence may carry a higher penalty when committed against a pregnant woman, it can equally be reasonably classified as “aggravated” when committed against a police officer. The bill relies on the assumption that offences committed against a police officer are always more serious than if the same offence were committed against another person. This assumption is not correct.
Secondly, the bill places a reverse legal burden of proof on the defendant charged with an aggravated offence. The defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they did not know that the victim was a police officer. Such a reverse legal burden on the defendant engages the presumption of innocence which must be afforded to all defendants in our legal system.
By requiring the defendant to prove, at the higher standard, that they did not know that the victim was a police officer, the bill offends the fundamental principle of criminal law which requires the prosecution to prove each element of an offence beyond reasonable doubt. I am not satisfied, with reference to the evidence available, that such a provision is reasonably justified in these circumstances and I do not think other members should be either.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video