Page 250 - Week 01 - Thursday, 15 December 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RAMSAY (Ginninderra—Attorney-General, Minister for Regulatory Services, Minister for the Arts and Community Events and Minister for Veterans and Seniors) (12.09): I move:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
I introduce the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2016. The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill contains a series of amendments that will improve ACT Policing’s ability to manage the child sex offenders register, respond to technical issues with robbery and burglary prosecutions, and clarify rules for licensed firearms dealers to support their business activities while preserving the ACT’s strict firearms regulations.
As I go through each of the amendments in detail and explain how they improve the ACT’s criminal regulatory legislation, I will note that they are part of the way the government is already hard at work enhancing the safety and the livability of Canberra.
Firstly, this bill amends the Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 to facilitate urgent investigations. Under the current legislation, police can seek a warrant through an expedited process only to check an offender’s personal details. The amendments in this bill would allow for that process to be used for warrants to investigate an offender’s breach of a prohibition order. For example, an offender who is suspected of visiting schools in breach of a court order could be quickly investigated using this kind of warrant. This amendment aims to help police to protect children from harm.
The second set of amendments in this bill is to the Criminal Code 2002, to provide alternative verdicts for aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery cases. A burglary or a robbery is aggravated when it is carried out by more than one person working together, or involves the use of an offensive weapon. The amendments mean that if a court finds that the offence of aggravated burglary or aggravated robbery has not been proven, but a burglary or robbery has been proven, the court can find the defendant guilty of the lesser offence.
An example of where this would help is where there is doubt about whether the offender committed the offence alone. As all the elements of the offences of burglary and robbery are contained in the aggravated offences, the prosecution must still prove all elements of robbery and burglary beyond reasonable doubt before the defendant can be convicted of the alternative offences.
The third set of amendments in this bill deals with serious organised crime. The bill expands the range of offences for which a non-association and place restriction order, a NAPRO, may be granted under part 3.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005. A non-association order prohibits an offender from being with a named person or communicating with that person. A place restriction order prohibits an offender from being in a named place or area. Currently the court can order a NAPRO for a person convicted of serious personal violence, drug, property, or administration of justice offences.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video