STATUTES AMENDMENT (APPEALS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 November 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:47): I rise to speak on this bill and indicate that the opposition will be supporting its passage. We reserve the right to consider some possible amendments in the Legislative Council. Although that will attract the usual tirade of complaint from the Attorney, the facts of the matter in relation to this bill are that the bill was introduced at the end of November 2012, and the Attorney made the specific point in his second reading contribution that:

I have deliberately introduced this bill now so that the Christmas break will provide a suitable opportunity for thorough consultation to occur with all interested parties and individuals.

The Attorney then went on to note that there had been some considerable history to this matter in the Legislative Review Committee's investigation report, provided in August 2012. Essentially, he was making the point that if he introduced it at the end of sitting last year, there would be a two-month adjournment of the parliament, and that would give us an opportunity to consult with it.

In practical terms, as the Attorney would be aware, at least during December and January of the break, it is difficult to ensure that relevant parties such as the Law Society, Bar Association and the like would be in a position to meet, consider and report on this matter. The opposition's consultation with them has occurred, and they have raised some matters which we wish to pursue with them. Accordingly, we place no blame on the Law Society or, indeed, on the Attorney because he outlined that he wanted to ensure that there was sufficient time to consult.

Unfortunately, lawyers and barristers, and probably quite a lot of people, are not known for having meetings between Christmas and perhaps the end of January period—people are away, there are school holidays, they have priorities with family, etc. So there is no blame cast on those who would be making a contribution to the debate on this matter. We certainly cast no accusation of progressing a matter unfairly by the government. I do that plenty of other times, in not giving us adequate time, but on this occasion I think they are without blame.

I should also acknowledge that, although I was not personally able to attend, the government did advise us and provided a briefing for representatives of the opposition with Mr David Platter. He has a very important title but I just cannot remember what it is—professor or doctor—and I am sorry that I have not noted that. In any event, he is a very important person who provides advice to the government on legal matters and, in particular, in relation to legislation. I have valued his advice in the past and his prompt attention to providing briefings on new legislation.

The subject matter here is one which is probably fairly dry for most people and of no interest to a good number of others. However, in circumstances where we are dealing with the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which is a piece of significant legislation which sets out both serious offences and processes which we undertake for criminal law, it is often only brought to the attention of members of the general public when someone gets into trouble—either them or a relative or a friend—and then it is a matter of deep interest to them and it can very significantly affect their life. It is not surprising that the general public is not either alert or interested in a number of these aspects but, as I say, the protection of individuals in these circumstances and the opportunity for fair trials and, in this particular area, the appeal process, becomes very significant if you are tied up in it.

The whole effect of this bill is the intention to improve the present procedures we have for appeals in South Australia. Members would probably be aware from articles in the paper sometimes and perhaps from constituents sometimes of the level of debate and discussion surrounding the circumstances where a conviction may be able to be reviewed or a renewed appeal against a conviction in a circumstance where there is fresh evidence.

This relates to the double jeopardy arguments with which some members may be familiar. I will refer to the areas of reform under this bill shortly but, suffice to say, that modern technology, the capacity to be able to identify pieces of evidence in a crime—particularly from DNA and blood samples—are very much more expanded now to samples of hair or skin or other genetic material which enables there to be more certainty in the reliability of evidence or to at least complement other evidence that had been given in relation to a crime and where a conviction had prevailed.

So, we need to look at how we accommodate whether the review of a conviction is looked at or whether there will be a further prosecution. It is not unreasonable, even in that environment, that the Legislative Review Committee look at this matter. The opposition thanks them for undertaking that work and for providing their report in August last year.

The report essentially includes seven recommendations and this bill really comes as a result of it. There are four new areas of reform in this bill, and I will outline a number of those from your position's perspective. From reading some of the submissions presented, I note that a considerable amount of work was presented by Dr Bob Moles, who is an academic author, I think, still at the University of Adelaide.

Perhaps I am doing him a disservice by not recognising his current position, but in any event he is probably well known to those of us in the house who have had anything to do with the criminal law processes in this state, and certainly in some fairly notorious cases which have been sought to have been reviewed, not just in the criminal courts but by the Governor. A number of petitions were presented in one very notorious case, and I do not want to be distracted by the detail of that.

It is fair to say that we have had some extraordinary cases in South Australia which have resulted in a real challenge to the fairness, reliability and robust capacity of our appeals system. We have certainly curtailed that in my lifetime. There were occasions of course where we used to be able to go off to the Privy Council if, after getting to the High Court, you were still unhappy. You could head off to London, and perhaps the most famous case in my lifetime was the Rupert Maxwell Stuart case of the murder of a young girl in the 1950s, which culminated in an application to the Privy Council. It then became the subject of the film called, I think, Black and White made of the trial surrounding that case.

Things have certainly changed. There were very significant issues about the conduct of the police in the interviewing of Rupert Maxwell Stuart, the circumstances of their alleged conduct and the denial of opportunity for Mr Stuart to have any rest or relief from a process that was clearly criticised. The issues that surrounded that, and whether someone gets a fair trial, really became quite legendary.

I seek leave to continue my remarks; I congratulate you, sir, in your new appointment today as the Deputy Speaker. I will no longer address you as the Acting Speaker. I look forward to that new and revered role.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.