Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this bill is to make amendments consequential to the enactment earlier this year of the Local Court Act 2015. I will not repeat the policies and principles that underpin the enactment of that legislation because I just read it out in the last second reach speech. Suffice to say that they also apply to this bill. The bill provides for matters consequential to the establishment of the new local court that has jurisdiction over both criminal and civil matters. This involves the consequent abolition of the court of summary jurisdiction and for ancillary reforms relating to consistency in proceedings within the Local Court, the Supreme Court, the Youth Justice Court and the Work Health Court. Many of the consequential amendments arise from the creation of the positions of chief judge or one or more deputy chief local court judges, local court judges, judicial registrars, a principal registrar, registrars and bailiffs and the abolition of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Many of the other amendments are Parliamentary Counsel-type amendments for the purposes of consistency across the statute book regarding spelling, pluralisation and capitalisation. I will not address these in detail as they are covered in the explanatory statement, which I will table in due course. The bill also provides for a number of other reforms which I will now outline. Firstly, the bill renames the Justices Act as the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act. It also removes or amends provisions of that act that duplicate provisions of the Local Court Act 2015 or other acts which are obsolete or unclear. The Justices Act is being renamed so that it is reasonably clear as to the relationship between the Local Court Act 2015. It will be the act that deals with the criminal law procedures that apply when the Local Court is exercising its criminal jurisdiction. For the longer term, the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act will be repealed and replaced with a statute that uses modern language and which reflects modern court practices. Second, the bill repeals all the provisions of the Justices Act and in other legislation relating to recognizances. Recognizances have not been used since the enactment in 1995 of the Sentencing Act. Third, the bill amends sections 121A of the Justices Act so that the value of property for the purposes of that section increases from $5000 to $50 000. Currently, section 120 provides various indictable offences involving the theft of property can be dealt with summarily if the value of the property concerned is $5000 or less. This amount was set in 1997. It is proposed that the monetary figure be increased to $50 000. It is considered that the Local Court rather than the Supreme Court is the appropriate court to try offences for the property of this value. Four, the bill amends section 121A of the Justices Act so that breaches of section 213 of the Criminal Code to which section 213(5) applies are subject to section 121A. The amendments made to section 121A of the Justices Act do not apply to offences committed prior to the commencement of the amendments. Fifth, the bill amends section 131A of the Justices Act so it is clear that the consent of the defendant is not required in order for a section 131A offence be dealt with summarily. The amendments made to section 131A of the Justices Act apply to all offences regardless of when they may have been committed. Section 131A provides that specified indictable offences of violence may be tried summarily in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The section states that this can occur unless the court is of the view that the matter should be tried on indictment, that is, before a jury in the Supreme Court. The operation of section 131A has been subject of differing approaches between the Supreme Court and the Court of Summary of Jurisdiction. The leading Supreme Court decision in Birkeland-Corro v Tudor-Stack 2005 15 NTRL 208 takes the view that the consent of the defendant is required. More recently, the magistrates have taken a different view. The Department of the Attorney-General and Justice has released to stakeholders a discussion paper on the operation of section 131A. This paper suggested that section 131A be amended so that the Lower Court has the discretion on whether section 131A matters can be dealt with summarily. The Chief Justice and Chief Magistrate have both indicated support for this approach. Legal service providers have opposed the change. Sixth, the bill amends section 169 of the Justices Act so that in lieu of recognizances to prosecute appeals there is a statement of a general duty on the appellant to prosecute an appeal. This replaces the generality of the current section 167(1). New section 169(2) provides that the Local Court may revoke bail of an appellant on bail that has not prosecuted the appeal. Seventh, the bill renames the Local Court Act 1989 as amended to the Local Court (Civil Procedure) Act and removing or amending provisions of that act that duplicate provisions of the Local Court Act 2015 or of other acts of which are obsolete or unclear. This renaming makes it clear that the current Local Court Act is not being repealed; rather, it is being retained as an interim measure with the function of dealing with the civil jurisdiction of the new Local Court. Eighth, the bill amends section 19(3) of the current Local Court Act 1989 - as amended - so that there cannot appeals on interlocutory matters from decisions of the Local Court to the Supreme Court. Under the word Health Court Legislation section 116(3) of the Return to Work Act, such appeals are not permitted. The Chief Magistrate has suggested that two provisions should be aligned so that interlocutory appeals on procedural matters should be permitted. This appears to be appropriate. Appeals should be limited to matters that go on the merits of the civil dispute. To implement this policy position, section 19(3) and (4) will be repealed. Ninth, the bill identifies which acts operate under the court’s criminal jurisdiction, namely the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act and the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act. All other acts operate in accordance with the default civil jurisdiction as provided for in section 19 of the Local Court Act. Tenth, the Bill amends the Bail Act and Bail Regulations so that all appeals on bail are consolidated in the Bail Act rather than in the Bail Act and the Bail Regulations. Provisions dealing with appeals from bail decisions are contained in the Bail Act and in the Bail Regulations. Consolidation into the one set of provisions in the Bail Act will improve accessibility to the law. The substance of the policy of the provisions has not changed. Eleventh, the bill amends section 35 of the Coroners Act. Section 35(3) provides that the Coroner must report to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police if the Coroner believes that a crime may have been committed in connection with the death or disaster investigated by the Coroner. This section is, along with all other sections in the statute book that use the word ‘crime’, being amended so that the generic term of ‘offence’ is used instead of ‘crime’. The word ‘crime’ has a technical meaning of indictable offence, but is sometimes used as in the case of section 35(3) where it is unclear as to whether the meaning is the technical meaning or the more general meaning of any breach of the criminal law. The Coroner’s Office was consulted about how section 35(3) works in practice. The Deputy Coroner, after consulting with the Coroner, advised that the preferred policy position is that it means offence, but that in the past there have been issues with the wording of the section when taking a restricted interpretation of the word ‘crime’. This section requires the Coroner must report crimes, and this has led to reporting even where it is known a person cannot or will not be prosecuted, that the offender is dead, or the matter has already had the benefit of a quashed prosecution or actual prosecution. Required reporting of all offences could become very tedious and misleading, especially if out of time. Taking account of these comments, it is proposed that section 35(3) be amended so that the Coroner has discretion whether or not to formally report on offences that may have been committed in respect of a coronial investigation of a death or disaster. Twelfth, the bill repeals and replaces section 3 of the Criminal Code Act so that offences are classified as either ‘summary’ or ‘indictable’ with the key factor being whether the maximum penalty is greater than two years imprisonment. One of the issues considered in the discussion paper released by the Department of Attorney-General and Justice in 2014 and the subsequent report was a rationalisation of the way offences are described and the courts in which they are tried. Currently, the main classification is that of ‘crimes’, ‘simple offences’ or ‘regulatory offences’. ‘Crimes’ are, as a general rule, are offences for which the maximum penalty is two or more years imprisonment. Regulatory offences will continue to exist and will usually be tried summarily. The term ‘regulatory offence’ is defined in the Interpretation Act. They are usually tried in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction. ‘Simple’ offences are all other offences with the exception of ‘regulatory’ offences, with the latter being offences for which there is no need to prove criminal intent. The position is complicated by the fact that in the Criminal Code Act, Misuse of Drugs Act and a number of other acts there are a number of offences that are described as ‘crimes’ but which have maximum penalties of less than two years. The bill provides that all offences are to be classified either ‘indictable’ or ‘summary’. References to ‘crimes’ and ‘simple offences’ will be removed. All offences that have a maximum penalty of two years or less imprisonment will be classified as ‘summary offences’. Thirteenth, the bill amends the Criminal Code Act and other acts so that offences are no longer described as crimes. This has the consequence that, with the exception of the offence in section 294(2) of the Criminal Code Act, the various offences in sections 65, 69, 70, 71, 80, 82, 105, 106, 107, 108, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 199, 200 and 283 of the Criminal Code Act and section 9(2)(f) of the Misuse of Drugs Act that have maximum penalties of two years or less and they will become summary offences. Fourteenth, the bill amends section 38(1) of the Fisheries Act so it remains a summary offence notwithstanding the amendments to section 3 of the Criminal Code Act and the fact that the maximum penalty is greater than two years imprisonment. Fifteenth, the bill amends the Local Court Act 2015, Supreme Court Act, Work Health Administration Act and the Youth Justice Act so as to spell out the circumstances in which a Supreme Court judge or Local Court judge is unable to continue in the hearing of a matter in the various courts. The course of developing the bill and the Justice Legislation Amendment (Summary Procedure) Act 2015, questions were asked as to whether current provisions for the various courts’ acts are adequate for dealing with the circumstance where a judge is unable to continue, the main area of doubt being: who is to make the decision as to when a judge is unable to continue? The issues have been discussed with the Chief Magistrate and the Chief Justice. It is proposed that each of the relevant acts - the Local Court Act 2015, the Youth Justice Act, the Supreme Court Act and the Work Health Administration Act - be amended so that each of them spells out the circumstances in which the senior judicial officer for the relevant court can appoint another judge to take over from a judge who is unable to continue. Each of the proposed sections sets out that a judge is unable to continue if he or she dies, vacates office in such a way as not to be able to finalise proceedings or by reasons of illness, injury or other cause unable to continue the proceedings without unreasonable delay. A decision by a Chief Justice or the Local Court Chief Judge as to whether a judge is unable to continue cannot be challenged. Under other provisions of each of the acts, the senior judicial officer of the court can appoint another judge to take over from a judge who is unable to continue. Sixteenth, the bill amends the Local Court Act 2015 so that there is no doubt that there is no need for any magistrate to swear another oath or partake of any other procedural requirement in order to be considered a local court judge, duly appointed for the purposes of the Local Court Act. Seventeenth, the bill amends section 148(1) or the Minerals Titles Act, so that the offence is a summary offence notwithstanding that the maximum penalty is greater than two years’ imprisonment. Eighteenth, the bill repeals and replaces section 122 of the Sentencing Act, so that the default maximum penalty for an indictable offence dealt with summarily is five years’ imprisonment, or 500 penalty units, unless the maximum penalty for the indictable offence is less than that period or amount. section 122 currently provides for the maximum penalty that can be imposed by a local court when dealing with an indictable offence in a summary way. These penalties are five years’ imprisonment and/or 250 penalty units ($37 000). This maximum penalty is inconsistent with the general relationship between imprisonment and fines penalty as established by section 38DA of the Interpretation Act. If the principle in the section is applied, the maximum penalty for section 122 is 500 penalty units, $74 500. It is appropriate that all sections containing indictable offences that can be dealt with summarily be drafted so that section 122 applies. Nineteenth, the bill amends the Care and Protection of Children Act so that the new Section 89 replaces the current section 88. It provides that there is to be a Family Matters Division of the Local Court and the proceedings must be constituted by a local court judge. This means that a registrar or a Justice of the Peace cannot handle the matters under the Care and Protection of Children Act. Twentieth, the bill amends the Work Health Administration Act so as to spell out how contempt of the court is to be handled. This replicates for the provisions of the Local Court Act 2015. Twenty-first, the bill provides for the repeal of the Crimes (Victims’ Assistance) Rules, Justices Rules and Local Court Regulations. Finally, the bill makes consequential amendments to the following acts and subordinate legislation: the Assembly Members and Statutory Office Remunerations and Other Entitlements Act; the Bail Act; the Bail Regulations Care and Protection of Children Act; the Coroner’s Act; the Criminal Code; the Cross-Border Justice Act; Cross-Border Justice Regulations; the Domestic and Family Violence Act; the Fines and Penalties Recovery Act; Fines and Penalty Recovery Regulations; the Fisheries Act; Housing Regulations; the Interpretations Act; the Justice Act; the Local Court Act; the Mineral Titles Act; the Misuse of Drugs Act; Misuse of Drugs Regulations; the Police Administration Act; the Prisoners Interstate Transfer Act; Prisoners’ Interstate Transfer Regulations; Public Transport Passenger Safety Regulations; the Sentencing Act; Sentencing Regulations; the Serious Crime Control Act; the Supreme Court Act; the Work Health Administration Act; the Youth Justice Act and Youth Justice Regulations. There are further reforms consequential to the enactment of the Local Court Act and the introduction of this bill. In the shorter term, part 4A of the Justices Act will be repealed, and replaced by another bill to be introduced during these sittings. The Records of Dispositions Act provides for the keeping of records and access to records. It applies to both higher and lower courts. It sets out, in considerable detail, the mechanics of keeping records. These are now out of date with changes in technology. It is proposed that all of these provisions be repealed other than those identified by the Supreme Court judges as being relevant, namely Sections 12-16. These will be dealt with by another bill. There will also be another consequential amendments bill of statute law revision nature dealing with the more minor amendments to approximately 153 other acts and pieces of subordinate legislation. I commend the bill to the House and table a copy of the explanatory statement. Debate adjourned. |