Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Mr President, I think it is proper that I should say there are people here more eminent than I to speak on this and I thought that the member for Nelson might have been the first one to his feet. But there are a couple of observations that I would like to make in relation to this. A lot of it came out in the second reading speech and I will go over some of it.
The number of appeals now taken is high and a very high number of appeals are taken, as we heard, without any supporting factual data, and that is becoming clear too as time progresses. In fact it is an almost automatic reaction and position for many convicted offenders to appeal. The fact that there are no grounds does not really matter. Many criminals are repeat offenders. They feed off one another. They play the system. There is no cost to them and they know the system very well and therefore this is causing a lot of these appeals to occur. The appeals process is very time-consuming and it is a very costly process and these changes, these alterations, are not designed to stop the person with a legitimate appeal right to appeal. It is not designed for that purpose at all. They will always have the right to appeal and they will always be supported in the system. If these people lose their appeal they have no loss, as I said. In fact their gain has been privileges in the meantime. As we have heard, the privileges are gained from being in remand rather th an being in jail, Mr President. The privileges there are great compared with those of a person who is in jail; visiting rights and all the other rights that go with that.
Mr Parkinson - They wear their own clothes, there is better accommodation.
Mr DEAN - Yes, the lot. It is far better and as we have just heard, too, some of these prisoners are able to serve their whole time in the remand section of the jail and never go into the jail proper. All of these things in my view add to the reasons some of these appeals are taken.
The second part of this bill removes, I believe, a grossly unfair and unreasonable requirement from the Crown. I have always said this. I always said it as a police officer and I say it again now. That is, having to give notice of an appeal to an accused before the rising of the court. Now the accused, if he or she wants to appeal for whatever reason, has, I am not quite sure what it is, 14 days, is it?
Mr Parkinson - Yes, 14 days.
Mr DEAN - Fourteen days to lodge their appeal. But the Crown on the other hand has to, at this time, identify the fact that they are going to appeal before the rising of that court. This levels out the playing field. We want a level playing field.
I support the position that the Government is putting up here. This requirement is almost as archaic, in my view, and silly as some of the other laws that we still have and I always, as a commander of police and as a detective in particular, complained about the position of police having to warn an offender when they are being interviewed. Once the police officer has sufficient evidence to charge those persons they then must warn them and tell them that they do not have to say anything more if they do not want to. In other words, they do not have to cooperate anymore. So I believe that this current appeal law is almost as silly as that. I think it is high time we went down the track of amending that as well. As I understand it, the removal of that requirement was mooted some time ago.
The other comment I want to make, Mr President, is that most of our laws come from the English laws and, as we know, here the Criminal Code dates from 1924 and I see a number of the laws now requiring amendment under that code. I think in fact this is one of them and we now have it before the Chamber. I commend the Government for bringing it forward and, accordingly, I support the bill.

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (APPEALS) BILL 2003 (No. 82)
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 -
(Schedule 1 amended - Criminal Code)
[5.23 p.m.]
Mr DEAN - Mr Chairman, I simply wanted to raise a point to understand how the process is going to work, and I refer to subsection (4A). What that identifies is, when I read the bottom part:
'the Attorney-General may' -
or DPP may -
'apply to the Court for an order requiring the accused to enter into a recognisance, with or without sureties, to appear before the Court at a specified time and place.'
I am just wondering how that is done, how it will be done if the accused person has been released, they were acquitted and the appeal is taken against acquittal, as to how that procedure will then follow on; how will they be caught up with. Is there some explanation as to how that process will occur?
Mr PARKINSON -I will try to align my clause notes with the bill. So (4A) -
Mr Dean - Yes, (4A).
Mr PARKINSON - Dealing with section 402?
Mr Dean - This is (4A) on page 5 of the bill. Subsection (4A), yes. I am just wondering how the process would occur.
Mr PARKINSON - 'If the Attorney-General has not notified his or her intention', is that the bit you're looking at?
Mr Dean - Yes, that is it.
Mr PARKINSON -
'If the Attorney-General has not notified his or her intention to appeal or given a notice of appeal or a notice of application for leave to appeal under subsection (3), then, if the relevant time has not expired, the Attorney-General may apply to the Court for an order requiring the accused to enter into a recognisance, with or without sureties, to appear before the Court at a specified time and place.'
That was referred to in the second reading speech.
Mr Dean - I am just wondering if a warrant is issued to bring that person back before the process or just how it is completed.
Mr PARKINSON - I assume we are talking about people who are not in custody.
Mr Dean - People who are not in custody; people who have been acquitted and released.
Mr PARKINSON - It enables the Attorney-General to make an application to consider an appeal for an order requiring the accused to enter into a recognisance pending the formal lodging of a notice of appeal and to safeguard a person's rights, such a recognisance will lapse at the expiry of seven days after the trial if a notice of appeal has not been lodged. My advice indicates, as we know, a recognisance is a release order mechanism to get the acquitted person - that is, the accused - back for appeal. I think we know that. It would be used when there is a risk of flight and it is likely, my advice is, that a warrant would be issued.
Mr Dean - That is the point I am making - is a warrant issued? There has to be a process to bring that person back into the court system.
Mr PARKINSON - I imagine that the requirement to enter into a recognisance would not necessarily apply in every case. I suppose it would depend on the course of the trial and whether the DPP feels that, like an applicant for bail - if it is the sort of person who is likely to take flight, they would be looking for -
Mr Dean - You have to be able to make contact with them, though, and if there is no requirement there, a warrant or some other formal procedure to have them enter into that recognisance.
Mr PARKINSON - That is right. My advice is that it is likely that a warrant would be issued.
Clause 4 agreed to and bill taken through the remainder of the Committee stage.