Page 2009 - Week 06 - Thursday, 9 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is an extremely difficult and serious matter for a person in Australia to have their case reopened once they have appealed. Australian courts have taken the view that there is only a legal right to a single appeal after conviction. Following this, a convicted person is left with the right to petition for an inquiry into their situation. This is an unsatisfactory situation for dealing with potential wrongful convictions. It is unlikely, difficult, slow and costly. It happens behind closed doors in the office of the Attorney-General and not in a public forum like the court.
There is a serious question whether this process properly protects the right to a fair trial or provides an adequate process for a person who has been wrongfully convicted to challenge their conviction. The Australian Human Rights Commission, among many others, has expressed the view that the current system is not adequate. It has suggested that the current procedure does not comply with international human rights obligations. As Michael Kirby, the former justice of the High Court, said:
Justice in such cases is truly blind. The only relief available is from the Executive Government or the media—not from the Australian judiciary.
We should correct this defect. We should enact a simplified pathway whereby a right to appeal begins with an initial judicial hearing of a single judge. There are already similar laws in place in both Tasmania and South Australia. It would be quite simple for the ACT to mimic these laws. While we could possibly improve on their laws, there is also the benefit of cross-jurisdictional consistency if we simply replicate them.
This is an important but relatively minimalist reform in this area. An even more ideal approach would be to nationally establish a body like the one in the United Kingdom called the Criminal Cases Review Commission. This is an independent non-departmental government body with responsibility for investigating alleged miscarriages of justice and referring them to the appeal court for review if appropriate. I think this is best done as a national reform but, in the meantime, there is a simple improvement we can make to our own ACT laws.
Members may have seen in the media today that the Greens have committed to enacting these laws as part of our policies to ensure we have a best practice justice system here in the ACT. I think they make particular sense in the context of introducing double jeopardy reform, and I invite members to consider the issue of right to appeal laws in the coming months. My hope is that we will be able to introduce these laws early in the new Assembly.
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) (8.40), in reply: I thank members for their comments and for their support of this legislation this evening; it is a significant piece of law reform. The Supreme Court Amendment Bill provides discrete exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy. These amendments have been developed after careful consideration by the government and in close consultation with justice stakeholders. The amendments follow a history of double jeopardy reform in almost all other Australian jurisdictions, in the UK and in New Zealand.
In 1996 the UK parliament passed laws to allow for the retrial of an acquitted person where the original trial was tainted. Since that time all other Australian jurisdictions
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video