Page 43 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 25 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The first change in the bill will allow the Magistrates Court flexibility to dispense with unnecessary formalities in the interests of justice, such as when the parties consent to a committal. Committals in the ACT are already fairly flexible following amendments made in 2008. Witnesses are not called in committal hearings unless an application is made that satisfies the court that it will be in the interests of justice. Looking at the most recent Bar Association newsletter, I see that the legal community has expressed its support for the further flexibility that will come from the change in this bill. The Director of Public Prosecutions suggested the changes, and in an article in the newsletter he notes that the regime for committals in the ACT generally works well but there are instances where both parties consent to a committal for trial taking place. In that situation it will be convenient for the court to have the power to dispense with any formal requirements which may otherwise delay the process.
I did raise an issue with Minister Corbell about the scope of this provision. I note that the revised explanatory statement now clarifies that the court can dispense with one or more provisions in part 3.5 in the interests of justice, which places a positive obligation on the court to exercise a jurisdiction only in appropriate cases.
Another change allows the Magistrates Court to refer summary offences related to an indictable offence to the Supreme Court so that they can deal with them at the same time. This is an efficiency measure that will help reduce double handling of summary charges. The Supreme Court retains the power to remit an action to the Magistrates Court for determination after the trial or sentence is complete. The DPP and the legal profession are also supportive of the change to facilitate portability of matters between the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court.
The bill makes several minor changes to the operation of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, ACAT. These were recommended by the general president of the tribunal. Clause 12 of the bill will remove a 12-week time limit for a tribunal interim order to expire. As the explanatory statement notes, the 12-week limitation was intended to encourage the timely completion of hearings. Unfortunately, in practice, the 12-week time frame is problematic, sometimes out of the tribunal’s control, and can result in applicants needing to reapply for interim orders and therefore pay additional costs.
There are several other changes to the ACAT which I will not detail here, but I am satisfied that they are appropriate changes to improve the efficiency of the tribunal and to clarify its operation.
The bill amends the Coroners Act to ensure that an inquest must be held into the death of a person who dies within 24 hours after medical intervention. Previously, the limit was 72 hours. This brings the ACT into line with South Australia, the only other jurisdiction with a time limit. As the minister has pointed out, we have a high rate of coronial inquests in the ACT compared to other jurisdictions. I agree that a coronial investigation can be traumatic for the loved ones of the deceased person, so there is an interest in reducing unnecessary inquests. I should note—and I thank the JACS Directorate for its clarification on this point—that this 24-hour limit will not interfere with existing requirements for an inquest to be carried out in any potentially
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video