Tony Lupton - Speech
Sexual Offences Procedure Bill
9 April 2008
I am pleased to support the bill before the house and to indicate that as a result of recommendations that were made to government by the Victorian Law Reform Commission in its landmark 2004 report Sexual Offences -- Final Report, the government is now bringing forward in the Parliament some further reforms which will go to strengthening the court process in relation to the hearing of sexual offence cases. They will serve to better protect the rights of parties and in particular vulnerable people and victims in those situations.
One of the things that the government did following the initial receipt of the law reform commission's report was to enact a number of pieces of legislation which put in place greater protections for victims of crime -- in this case, victims of sexual offences.
One of the advances made at that time was to bring in a system of special hearings in sex offence trials for the hearing of prerecorded evidence and cross-examination of child complainants and complainants with cognitive impairment. What this means is that where a child or a person who suffers from a cognitive impairment complains of being a victim of a sexual offence, they have their evidence, which would ultimately be given in a court trial, prerecorded so that they only ever have to give that evidence once and in circumstances that provide them with a great degree of respect and sensitivity.
It is fair to say that historically victims of sexual offences have had to go through some very traumatic experiences in reliving the circumstances of crimes, and giving evidence in court can be an extremely traumatic circumstance for people to have to go through.
I had experience in the legal profession approaching 20 years before I came into this place and was involved in many trials where a very significant part of the role of the legal representative was to make sure that a person was helped through the very difficult and sometimes traumatic experience of giving evidence. I do not think there are many circumstances that can be more traumatic for a person than having to recount in open court the circumstances of having a very serious crime committed against them.
In the past it was often the case that people who complained of being victims of crimes -- that is, sexual offences in the cases that this legislation deals with -- had to give evidence on a number of occasions, and that can be extremely difficult.
It was a great advance that was recommended by the Victorian Law Reform Commission in what I believe was an extremely important report to this Parliament, and I am very pleased that our government saw fit to take those recommendations on and enact them in law in Victoria to provide a better and more just legal system for our citizens.
As I have said, one of the advances recommended in the report gave people in those situations the right to have special hearings where their evidence would be prerecorded. The initial legislation set up a time frame for these special hearings of 21 days from the date that the accused was committed for trial by a magistrate. What we have found since the legislation has been in place is that the 21-day time limit is not working to the satisfaction of the parties involved in those court cases. In fact the Chief Judge of the County Court, Judge Rozenes, wrote to the Attorney-General suggesting that a longer time frame would serve all the parties and the court in providing a better and more just system.
The suggestion was that the 21-day time limit for the special hearings be extended to three months. This extra time will make it easier for one judge to be listed for the special hearing and also the trial.
It is very important that the same judge hear the evidence that is prerecorded in a special hearing and also be appointed to the trial in which that prerecorded evidence is played to the jury. Allowing the three-month time limit which this legislation will bring in will make it a lot easier for the court to administer this legislation and to ensure that the same judge hears all the evidence. The changes will also make the process more efficient and help avoid special hearings being adjourned because the defence or the prosecution has not had sufficient time to properly prepare for the special hearing.
In addition the legislation strengthens the law requiring that these trials commence within three months of the committal to ensure a faster hearing by the courts in these matters. What we are saying in this legislation is that while the special hearing should not have to take place within 21 days and can take place within a three-month period, the legislation strengthens the requirement that those trials will nonetheless commence within three months of the committal. That is an important point because it will mean that the system will be more streamlined and it will not lead to delays in these cases coming on for the full trial. This again will assist the courts in making sure that the same judge is able to preside over the special hearing and the trial and give consistency in relation to the hearing of these very important cases. As I said earlier, it will certainly assist in relieving trauma for vulnerable people who are the victims of sex offences by reducing the adjournments of special hearings, making the process more efficient and further expediting trials.
This is a particularly important change to the way in which the hearing of sex offence cases will proceed in our courts.
It will make sure that victims are treated with greater respect and that their situation is treated with sensitivity. In relation to the general administration of justice for all parties and for the courts it will make sure that the system works more effectively.
In relation to a couple of matters that were raised earlier in debate I should mention briefly that what clause 3 of the bill seeks to do is to extend that three-month time limit for the holding of a trial to cover all offences of indecent assault and not just those upon victims under the age of 16. We can certainly refute the suggestion put by the opposition that this legislation may have the effect of delaying trials of other matters. That will not be the case, and we reject that suggestion.
As I said earlier, the important stakeholders in the legal system, including the County Court, which is responsible for the listing of matters before it, have been very closely consulted in relation to this matter, and in fact were in large measure the instigators of these amendments to the legislation coming before the house.
In relation to some of the other matters to do with the names of offences under the legislation, the opposition has suggested that in some way changing the names of offences may have some effect in changing the elements of the offence. That is not correct; we refute that suggestion. The opposition is not correct in relation to that matter. In summary, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Sex Offences Procedure) Bill is before the house because of requests that have been made by people who want to make sure that we improve the administration of justice in relation to sexual offence hearings in this state. It is a good bill, I support the bill and I commend it to the house.
Home Privacy, Copyright, Disclaimer Site Map