Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Wednesday 11 July 2007

JUSTICES AMENDMENT BILL 2007

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - I will stick to the police side of things. I very much support the bill but I would have liked to have seen it passed about 30 years ago, because that is how long it has been going for.

Mr Wilkinson - You were a prosecutor then.

Mr DEAN - And I intend to talk a little bit about that. When I was a prosecutor, almost that long ago, these problems were being experienced then about the delays in getting the material forward to proceed with cases and cases were being lost and magistrates were believing that they were being deliberately held up. It was just a nonsense and it has taken until now to attempt to sort it out. There have been some changes, obviously, on the way, but I think with the passing of this bill we ought to be able to streamline these processes and therefore save a lot of cases that have previously been lost for one reason or another.

Delays mean - and police will tell you this very clearly - that in many instances more crimes are committed by the individual who is on bail or waiting, or that they abscond in the meantime because they get sick of complying with their bail conditions. It also means undue stress on the offender in some instances, the accused, and also the witnesses because they have a lot more time to think about it and about what they are going to do. The unavailability of witnesses has been referred to; for whatever reason, they disappear, move home or away they go. It is really a bit of a nonsense. There is time for manipulation of witnesses and the interference of witnesses, time for witnesses to forget, and this happens a lot. A lot of victims and witnesses simply want to withdraw from the process after a time, they get sick of hanging around and waiting, so anything that is going to speed up the process I would support, as would the police. I had a discussion at lunchtime with the President of the Police Association of Tasmania, Randolph Wieringa, and he said that the police fully support this legislation and the sooner it comes in the better because they know what is happening out there. Their members want to see speedier process in this regard.

The main point is that we must have the courts available for the hearing of these matters and it has often been put forward, as was mentioned in the second reading speech, that sometimes there have not been the courts available for these trials to be heard quickly. The magistrates and justices also need to be available, so a lot of things need to come together to ensure that this can work properly.

Mr Wilkinson - I don't think court availability is going to be a problem. There is certainly not an influx of trials in the Criminal Court at all; in fact, there are probably fewer trials now than there have ever been, so there is not going to be a problem there. In relation to the Magistrates Court, that is not going to be a problem because, other than it being for murder or something like that, it is a matter heard before a justice of the peace. It is just finding space, as opposed to an actual court.

Mr DEAN - I think that was probably part of what was in the press here recently where they were saying that some civil proceedings were now being brought on earlier and quicker, and I guess that is because of the freeing-up perhaps of the Supreme Court as a result of it. It was interesting, Mr President, that when police started going into electronic and audio interviewing, and going through all of those processes, it was said then that a lot of that would speed up the trials and make evidence available much sooner. But that never really eventuated.

Mr Wilkinson - Isn't that why you're getting more pleas of guilty now, though? That's the real reason for that.

Mr DEAN - You are right, it certainly helped there as well with the pleas of guilty. I do not think there is any doubt about that, and the statistics show that very clearly with the video recording in particular. The visual recording has certainly assisted there in many ways.

The Commander of Police now has the responsibility to ensure that over that seven-week period - the remand period, as I understand from my interpretation, is seven weeks; I do not know why but perhaps the Leader can tell me why seven weeks was selected -

Mr Parkinson - Well, the world was created in seven days.

Mr DEAN - I see, so we have seven weeks. That is a reasonable explanation.

Mr Wilkinson - It was decided on the seventh of the seventh of '07 as well.

Mr DEAN - Well, that is reason enough for seven weeks being selected. But within that period of time, Mr President, the Commander of Police has -

Mr Parkinson - I presume the Commissioner of Police was consulted on it.

Mr DEAN - I honestly do not know, but it is interesting. I thought it might have been two months, but anyway, it is there. But within that period of time the Commander of Police has the responsibility to ensure that all of the evidence that is available - that is, witness statements, audio-visuals, audio, the interview that was taken if it was a written interview, or whatever - has to be provided to an accused person if they do not have representation, or to a solicitor if the accused person is represented.

Mr Parkinson - These dates are flexible. The magistrate can listen to excuses as to why the date has not been met.

Mr DEAN - That was a point I was going to make, that perhaps magistrates might now be probably a little more severe on the prosecution in regard to this. Because there has been a set time identified for the making available of all of the evidence, perhaps magistrates or justices might start now to say that because a defendant has failed to comply or meet the requirements, it could be a reason for dismissal of a case.

Mr Parkinson - I doubt it, because there's a lot of law on when a case can and cannot be dismissed. I imagine that a prosecutor, properly briefed, could satisfy a magistrate that the document is not far away, and so on.

Mr DEAN - I think you are right that most magistrates would certainly see it that way. I guess if they were satisfied that there was a real effort made to do all of those things, then they would be taking that into account. As I said, most of them are very responsible people, as you know.

Mr Wilkinson - Through you, Mr President - can I ask you this question? Do you believe that in the end this may well mean that there will be an increased number of trials? Let us say it is an identification problem and the defence is unable - because a judge might say, 'No, that's not good enough reason, we don't know yet' - to cross-examine a person. You know the problems that can revolve around identification. The only way a person would know whether they should or should not plead guilty in the end might be on the issue of identification. If you are unable to have this uncontested committal proceeding, you then might just say, 'Well, blow it, we'll go to the Criminal Court for trial', because you are unable to see how well that person identified the individual and whether it was in accordance with the law as we know it in the Thompsons case, and so on.

Mr DEAN - My answer to you would have to be yes, because you are right. Identity is the issue in many instances, and because that factor will not be contested now, they will probably want to proceed to trial to see whether or not in fact identification can be satisfied to the extent that the court requires it. So I cannot see it moving the other way and decreasing the number going to trial. In my view it can only increase, it cannot decrease.

Mr Wilkinson - I might - through you, Mr President- also say this. The statement has been made that the changes of plea in the end after an uncontested committal proceeding mean a saving to the community and it is a vast saving to the community not having a trial. It might seem that the statistics say that the reason that is the case is that you are able to have these uncontested committal proceedings. Then a defence can often say, 'That person is rock solid in relation to identification' - and I am just using that as the example on this occasion - 'therefore my advice is it should be a plea of guilty'. That cannot be the case now and that is what I am concerned about.

Mr DEAN - I would share your concerns in that regard as well. I thought that the uncontested committal stage was a good situation when it was first brought in and that in fact has only been operating for -

Mr Wilkinson - A few years.

Mr DEAN - I am trying to think when it came in and where I was at the time and I think it was at Burnie when that system commenced, back in about 1990.

Mr PRESIDENT - I think we need another lectern, a twin one.

Mr DEAN - Sorry, Mr President. It has not been there for decades and decades and I thought that process was working very well. It will be interesting just to see what changes occurred when that was brought in compared to what was happening just prior to it, whether it did change the way that accused people were proceeding with their trials and whether it did result in a lot of people deciding to plead guilty or whether they actually went through to trial. It would be interesting to get those figures if they are available. I would agree with the member for Nelson; I cannot see the numbers decreasing. I think they will have to increase because of what is occurring there. I guess it surprises me that there has been that change made and I just wonder how much work has been done on it. The change would not be made simply on a whim, I would have thought, but rather they would have done that on statistical data and feedback from a number of sources. Perhaps the Leader could provide some information on that in his answer to the debate.

Return To Main Page. Return To Speeches.