Page 1490 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is what was said before that botched amendment got put through, but it is also important to note what was said when that amendment was put through. The Law Society, in an article reported on 2 April in the CityNews, said:
The right to trial by jury is a significant, longstanding right in our legal system that has been consistently observed by the High Court of Australia …
It is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law, and has been enshrined in legal systems since before Magna Carta.
The article continues:
The ACT government has inexplicably opted to take an approach that is radically different to the NSW solution, despite the chief minister repeatedly emphasising the importance of the ACT taking action that is consistent with NSW at this time, says the society.
The Law Society … is alarmed that the ACT government has taken this action, when NSW has already proved that legislation like this can be enacted without abrogating rights.
They should have been rightly alarmed, as were so many others across the legal community. They summed it up as being “fundamentally unsound and misguided”—and it was. The ACT Bar Association president, Steve Whybrow, stated that the ACT Bar Association and the ACT Law Society “strenuously opposed this unnecessary and dangerous precedent”. I will say that again: “unnecessary and dangerous precedent”. The Legal Aid Office and the Human Rights Commissioner have also voiced their concerns. They said:
The justifications for this change are said to be the adverse consequences of delays in finalising criminal proceedings. The delays in the ACT are already amongst the shortest in the country. No other jurisdiction in Australia has taken the extraordinary step of revoking an accused person’s right to trial by jury.
The ACT Bar Association president said:
It does nothing to advance the interests of justice or the victims of crime for there to be significant doubt cast over the legitimacy of a trial process or create a real possibility that such trials might be declared invalid.
He said:
I call on the government and the ACT Supreme Court to step back from this extreme law and engage in discussion with the profession as to how the business of the courts is best managed. There are better solutions to the problem that do not result in abandoning fundamental rights.
It is extraordinary, isn’t it, that the head of the Bar Association describes these laws as “dangerous and unnecessary”, and “extreme”? I am glad that we are today repealing those dangerous, unnecessary and extreme laws.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video