Page 4081 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 23 October 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The bill we are debating today also provides powers to an associate judge of the Supreme Court to issue warrants under a range of acts. This measure will enhance administrative efficiency, as it will increase the pool of judges able to issue warrants and perform duty functions over weekend and holiday periods. It will improve the effectiveness of the Supreme Court and assist the court to flexibly manage its case load. It will also improve timeliness for law enforcement agencies applying for warrants. This is a common-sense approach aligned with recent amendments widening the role of an associate judge.
This amendment will allow an associate judge to issue warrants under the act and also make orders associated with warrants. This approach is consistent with recent amendments made to the Supreme Court Act which expand the jurisdiction of the associate judge. It is a common-sense amendment which will improve the efficiencies of the Supreme Court by increasing the pool of judicial officers available to issue warrants. This will have a positive impact for law enforcement agencies such as police to respond urgently to investigate breaches of the law.
We also see minor and technical amendments contained in the bill to extend the existing mechanisms for transferring backup and related charges with an indictable matter committed to the Supreme Court. Under the Magistrates Court Act, a magistrate is able to commit an accused person charged with an indictable offence for trial on application by the person and with the prosecution’s consent. This increases the efficiencies in the Magistrates Court by allowing magistrates to attend to other priority matters, and speeds up the committal process. The bill addresses the lack of express powers to transfer related summary charges with the indictable charge. This will ensure better outcomes for the accused person to reduce lengthy and costly legal proceedings in both courts.
Section 88B provides the court with a power to commit an accused person for trial on application by the person and with the prosecution’s consent: in effect, a waiver of the full committal hearing. A concern has been raised about the apparent anomaly in the drafting of section 88B, as there is no mechanism to transfer backup and related charges.
The inability to transfer backup and related charges creates potential inefficiency, as it means that the Magistrates Court must retain the charges until the committed matter is finalised in the Supreme Court. This reduces efficiencies of the courts, and can increase costs for accused persons. Backup offences contain elements similar to those constituting the first indictable offence and are relied on by the prosecution as alternative charges to the primary charges. Related offences arise from substantially the same circumstances as those from which the first indictable offence has arisen. This means that an accused person could be tried in separate courts for offences arising from the same set of circumstances, with the same evidence called. The bill makes changes to both the Magistrates Court Act and the Supreme Court Act to align the process of committal in section 88B.
The bill also increases the value of penalty units used to define the amount payable for fines for offences. It is very important that the value of penalty units is maintained
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video