Page 1489 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the accused’s wish. Under the changes a judge-only trial could occur where the accused person requests a judge-only trial, or where the judge decides that a judge-only trial is necessary in the interests of justice, having heard submissions from both prosecution and defence. As I said at the time, the Greens supported this change, but it was not a decision we took lightly. The right to a jury trial is a very important and longstanding part of the criminal justice system. We would not have contemplated the change had it not been for the extraordinary circumstances we found ourselves in due to the COVID pandemic. We were concerned about delaying trials while the COVID pandemic prevented jury trials due to distancing and isolation requirements. This meant accused people staying on remand for longer, the possible loss of evidence or witnesses due to time, and a delay in the resolution for victims of crime.
Fortunately, due to the good progress in keeping the spread of COVID down in the ACT, the changes were temporary. This low transmission rate has meant that the Supreme Court can recommence the conduct of jury trials, with special measures to ensure that social distancing requirements can be complied with. I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to repeal this COVID-related clause to enable the courts to proceed as per their usual practices. The ACT Greens will be supporting this bill today.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (11.55): As Mr Coe indicated, we will be supporting this legislation. I want to address my comments to the amendment to the Supreme Court Act. This section repeals the amendment that was made by this government, and supported by the Greens, to remove the right to a trial by jury, even when opposed by parties to that trial. It is an amendment that, quite frankly, should never have been passed. It should never have been supported by the Greens. It should never have been put forward by the Attorney-General.
It is important to state that our opposition to the change that was made at the time was not about the politics; it was about justice. The opposition went well beyond just the voices of the Canberra Liberals. Many others in the community raised their concerns. When we tried to stop this original change happening, a range of people spoke up loudly, and they should have been listened to. At the time, the Law Society said:
It must be understood that what is protected by the existence of jury trials is both actual justice for an accused and the perception of justice being administered. That both must be achieved is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law.
At the time, Legal Aid ACT said:
Trial by jury is a fundamental right of an accused person and it is for the accused person to waive this right.
The High Court has stated that “trial by jury is a right, and trial by judge alone must be understood as a waiver of that right, that waiver being the right of the accused”. The Bar Association and the Human Rights Commission also raised concerns. All of those concerns were ignored by the Attorney-General and ignored by Mr Rattenbury, who pushed that amendment through.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video