Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to require the defence to provide notice to the court and to the prosecution if they intend to present expert evidence during criminal trials in the Supreme Court. This aims to make the trial process fairer, reduce court time and costs, and to reduce trauma to witnesses. Expert evidence is often technical and relates to matters like DNA evidence or medical evidence about such things as deep vein thrombosis. Expert witnesses therefore have specialised knowledge, skill or experience in the area of their testimony. Expert evidence is not testimony concerning facts. The role of an expert is to assist the court to determine the issues in dispute. To do this, the court must be able to assess the evidence introduced, including the independent expert’s opinion. The majority of jurisdictions in Australia have legislation requiring defence to disclose an intention to call expert evidence. The Northern Territory currently does not. This leads to the situation where sometimes the defence will let the prosecution know if they intend to call expert evidence, but sometimes the defence gives no notice and the prosecution can be taken by surprise in the course of the trial. This limits the court’s ability to assess the evidence introduced. If the prosecutor knows that the defence intends to call an expert, and know what that person’s opinion is, then he or she is better able to effectively cross-examine the witness. It may be the case, as happens in some instances, that the prosecution accepts the defence experts’ opinion. In such a case, a trial might be avoided or at least the issues in the trial are narrowed down, saving court time, expense and trauma and inconvenience to witnesses. This government appreciates that he proposed legislation amounts to a shift in balance between the prosecution and defence. Indeed, some might argue that the nature of our criminal justice system means that the prosecution must prove its case, meet all defences, and that the defence should not be obliged to show its hand at all. However, the defence is already obliged to give notice of an alibi, for the same reason that it makes the trial process fairer and reduces court time and costs, as a trial might be avoided. The government believes this further obligation to give notice will not lead to injustice. The notice is limited to trials in the Supreme Court. Additionally, the court is empowered to allow the defence a shorter period of time, than the 14 day notice period prescribed in the legislation, to comply with the notice obligations. In short, notices in the interests of procedural fairness will potential reduce trauma and inconvenience to witnesses and decrease court time and cost. The courts and the legal profession have been consulted in relation to the decision to introduce the legislation. The majority of stakeholders were supportive, in particular, the judges of the Supreme Court noted that the absence of a requirement for the defence to give notice of intention to call expert evidence can create procedural difficulties in the trial process and unfairness to the prosecution, due to the lack of opportunity to properly prepare to meet the defence evidence. I commend the bill to honourable members and I table a copy of the explanatory statement. Debate adjourned. |