Page 1568 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Capital Metro, Minister for Health, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Climate Change) (10.17): I move:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
Today I am presenting the Supreme Court Amendment Bill 2016. This bill provides three exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy in the ACT. The rule of double jeopardy provides that no-one may be tried or punished again for an offence for which he or she has already been finally convicted or acquitted. This law is enshrined in the ACT Human Rights Act and operates to recognise the value of finality, encourage investigative and prosecutorial diligence and limit the possible abuse of state power.
This bill provides exceptions to the rule of double jeopardy in three clearly defined cases where upholding the rule would bring the law into disrepute and be against the interests of the community. The exceptions have been developed in a considerate and proportionate way that ensures they only go as far as is absolutely necessary and no further.
Firstly, the rule against double jeopardy will not apply where fresh and compelling evidence of guilt arises after a person has been acquitted of a very serious offence. This may be in the form of DNA evidence that did not exist at the time of the original trial but which now exists due to advances in DNA technology. Secondly, there will be an exception where a trial has been tainted by, for example, witnesses or jurors being threatened and so an acquittal in that case cannot be seen to be fair or just.
Lastly, the bill will address a decision of the High Court in the case of Carroll in 2002 in which the rule against double jeopardy prevented the prosecution of an acquitted person for allegedly committing perjury during their trial for murder. After the decision in Carroll there was national concern that such a strict operation of the double jeopardy rule meant that court processes could be compromised at the cost to the community and the victims of crime.
In July 2006 the Council of Australian Governments agreed that reform of the rule against double jeopardy was an important criminal law policy reform that merited nationally consistent treatment. In April 2007 COAG agreed to implement a number of double jeopardy law reform working group recommendations, including those in the bill I present today.
The United Kingdom has allowed retrials to be ordered for “tainted acquittals” since 1996 and introduced further exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy in 2003. New Zealand also has a range of exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy enacted in 2008.
Following extensive consultation over a number of years which considered the approaches taken in other jurisdictions and the views of stakeholders in the ACT, I have taken the view that limited reforms to the rule against double jeopardy are clearly in the public interest and otherwise warranted. While cases falling within these
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video