Juries (Prejudicial Publicity) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 February 2015.)

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:06): I rise today to speak on the Juries (Prejudicial Publicity) Amendment Bill 2015 and note that I am not the lead speaker on this bill because we have already had one. I have great respect for the Attorney. I have said nice things about him previously that I do not wish to repeat because it seems that they go to his head—it goes to his head.

Mr Gardner: He's an excellent movie critic.

Mr KNOLL: That's right.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Everything had been really good until the member for Morialta returned to the chamber. You are being noticed, sir.

Mr Gardner: I was saying nice things, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are being noticed, sir. The member for Schubert is entitled to be heard in silence.

Mr KNOLL: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Interestingly, though, that more legal legislation is brought before this place—and it does seem that that is the lion's share of what is happening—either suggests that other ministers maybe need to lift their game or that the Attorney is overzealous. I do think that perhaps it is a bit of the latter. Certainly, this bill seems to me to be quite a blunt and heavy-handed approach to the way we deal with criminal prosecutions in South Australia.

The bill amends the Juries Act 1927. Section 7 of the act sets out the provision for trial by judge alone. The bill will enable the court to order, in criminal trials, that the case be heard by judge alone when an application to stay the case on the ground that there has been prejudicial publicity sufficient to threaten a fair trial has been made.

There are time-honoured principles in the law which respect and demand that a person have the right to trial by jury in serious criminal cases. We have had a look back and reviewed a number of notorious murder cases over the past four years where the murder has generated headlines, and the claim that this bill is necessary to ensure a fair trial really does not stack up on the evidence as we have been able to have a look at it. That does seem to be quite consistent with my own thinking and my own delving into this matter.

The loss of a right to a jury trial is significant. The Law Society has pointed out that for centuries trial by jury, including the requirement of a unanimous verdict, has been the hallmark of the criminal justice system. Obviously, in the 21^st century we feel that we can do away with these things, and that we now come to a point where we think that we need to get rid of trial by jury.

It is interesting that we have a media which responds and deals with reporting on matters such as this in a certain way, and a lot of the time they are responsible; sometimes they are not responsible. Having said that, an interesting effect I think this bill will have, and something again the Law Society talks about, is that the media will not feel constrained by the fact that we could see an increase in socialisation of reporting if we have trial by judge alone because the media do not feel that they have to show necessarily any restraint.

It is also interesting to note that in a case last year where a Families SA worker was charged (and I believe that is a case that has been brought up and talked about) there was a suppression order on that case. I find it interesting that, in the modern age, where we have significant social media, communication and the way in which we communicate has changed but, in essence, it really has stayed the same—and I am referring to social media, and that is obviously something that the Attorney is talking about, the fact that the proliferation of social media may increase the ability of juries to be, I suppose, persuaded by what is happening out in the public sphere.

Social media is no different, in this instance, from the gossip that used to happen amongst smaller communities. There is this idea that because the mode of communication has changed, whereas maybe the message itself has stayed the same, therefore we now need to have a complete change. I do not really buy into that argument. I think that we have a responsible and mature society, and I believe that the principles under which we have had trials by jury is a principle worth upholding and one which is still relevant very much today.

I would like to talk about a couple of experiences that have happened in my family. Both my oldest brother and my mother have served as jurors. My brother had a very significant case which took him away from the family business for what was about six weeks in the end. He did not want to talk about the case, and he took his responsibilities extremely seriously. Even though it was at personal cost to himself and to the family business, he was very proud about the fact that he could participate in democracy in this way.

It was only a couple of months after my brother had served on a jury, my mother was also asked to serve as a juror and, again, she took that responsibility extremely seriously. For her, it was less of an imposition because she works in the Central Market and wandering down to the courthouse was a lot simpler process. My mother will be upset by my having mentioned this but I think that it bears mentioning, but she did remark to me one day, 'Stephan, I think that I'm a really good juror. How do I sign up so that I can do it again?' I had to sit down and explain, 'Well, no, mum, you don't get to choose whether or not you're a juror, you get selected as a random member of the public.' My mother was quite upset by this because she figured that she had a set of skills. She is certainly an intelligent women and would have made a fantastic juror. She really thought that this was one way in which she could contribute to our society, and she was very upset by not being able to do it as often as she wanted.

We on this side of the house are certainly going to oppose this piece of legislation. The conservative in me suggests that we understand that trial by jury is a principle which is used to get closer to the correct verdict more often. We are a mature society, and we should treat jurors as intelligent people who are able to take into account what is right and what is wrong, what should be considered as part of a case and what should not be considered as part of a case, and to trample on that principle because modern communication techniques have changed I think is disappointing and, on that basis, I oppose the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (12:13): First of all, the member for Schubert, when he struggles with the conservative within should not always let the conservative within win because there is another side to the member for Schubert, which I have seen occasionally glimmer out, where he resists those conservative temptations and marches up towards the bold sunlit uplands and embraces change, just like many members on this side do.

I just want to place on the record a few important facts about this matter. The fact is that we do live in a time when communications have changed and were we simply dealing with the conventional print media and the conventional radio and television moguls, then the risk of this sort of thing happening would be marginally less because they are already covered by things. In the case of sexual offences involving young people, for example, there is section 71A of the Evidence Act, and mandatory suppressions. They are also mindful of the fact that if they misbehave themselves they may wind up in contempt of court, and nothing we are suggesting here would change that.

However, what we are confronting now is a bunch of people who are out there Instagramming, Facebooking, Twittering—and there is probably a number of other different things that I do not know about; in fact, I would put money on the fact that there is certainly a number of others I do not know about. People are just out there putting what could be complete rubbish into the atmosphere, which is picked up by God knows who, who give it God knows what level of credibility. It is a completely different proposition to what used to be the case.

I think the member for Heysen and I also share the view that the media does not always act responsibly, even if we are talking about the conventional media. Some of their—

Ms Redmond: No, I think the media don't ever act responsibly.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am prepared to almost embrace that; I think we have some real issues. Whatever you think of the conventional media, this other phenomenon is even less responsible and not accountable to anyone.

I just want to make a couple of comments. First, there is the need for it since the case of Dupas v The Queen in 2010, where the High Court actually set a very high bar for the successful application by a person for a permanent stay of proceedings because of prejudicial publicity. This amendment is intended to fill a gap: that is, there is currently nothing between a jury trial with directions and a permanent stay, there is nothing in the landscape at all.

The second thing is regarding the loss of a right to a jury trial. Bear in mind, member for Schubert, that this is not going to be rolled out every five minutes: this is going to be an extremely exceptional and uncommon case. The problem is that if we then try to remediate the problem at the point in time where such a case is on the boil, that causes another problem altogether in the sense that the parliament is, in effect, legislating in the context of one matter, and it is very difficult to conclude that you are not legislating for that particular matter. This is an attempt to—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not think that is the best way to do things; I accept that. If you like, this is a prophylactic measure against something occurring in the future. Characterising this bill as eroding the right to a jury trial is just not correct. There is, for example, no constitutional right to a trial by jury at a state level: it is actually conferred by legislation. Incidentally, in other states of Australia people still have trials by jury in civil matters, and no-one is wandering around saying that the fact we do not have that is some fundamental erosion of rights.

The order can only be made if an accused has made an application for a permanent stay of proceedings and—this is important—the only time this order can be made is if the accused presses the button and says, 'I want to have a stay of proceedings.' Presumably, therefore, they have concluded that they no longer want a jury trial due to the effect of the publicity. To put it another way, the opposition is very keen to defend the right of an accused to have a trial by jury in the rare case that the defendant applies successfully not to have any trial at all. I will say that again because that—

Mr Knoll: That's convoluted advice.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It may be convoluted but it is so pithy.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What the opposition is pursuing is to ensure that the defendant has the right—they want to defend the right of an accused to have a trial by jury in the rare case that the accused applies successfully not to have any trial at all.

Ms Chapman: Hear, hear!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, respectfully, we have to agree to disagree because in that rare circumstance they should not be able to evade the justice system by being so cute and clever that they apply not to have a trial by jury because it would not be fair, and the outcome is they do not get any trial at all.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I'm asking the deputy leader—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, they can apply if they wish and they takes their chances.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The book is out.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They take their chances.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The book is out; that's it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They apply, they are successful, the court may say, 'Well, fair enough, you can still have your trial but judge alone.' The odds of a successful stay are very small, and I do not get away from that at all; however, if it were to occur and such a thing were to happen, we should have this provision on the statute book. The effect would be that it does not affect any of the contempt of court provisions; this is to remind those who report on criminal charges that they can still be charged with contempt if so required.

It does not affect the ability of a person to apply for a stay. They can still apply for a stay. If you look around the country, at the commonwealth level it is a different situation because there is a constitutional requirement in respect of a trial by jury and, of course, the commonwealth is not the primary criminal jurisdiction of the commonwealth.

In Queensland, there is section 615 of the Queensland Criminal Code which commenced operation on 19 September 2008. That section allows a judge to make a no jury order in certain circumstances, including where there has been prejudicial pre-trial publicity. That section is, in fact, broader than the amendment contained in this bill but the no jury orders for prejudicial publicity have the same general concept.

There are four unreported cases about the making of no jury orders where there has been prejudicial pre-trial publicity. They are: Massimo Sica, 2013; Jayant Patel No. 4 2013 (I think we know who Mr Patel might be); Kissier in 2011; and Mr Robert Fardon 2010. If I am not mistaken Mr Fardon is a person who was a repeat offender in the paedophile area. All of these cases illustrate the difficulty of achieving successful application for a no jury order.

It seems to me that there is no harm done by this legislation and, in fact, in the event of somebody being in a position where they think they might be able to take advantage of this we need something like this in place to make sure that they still meet the prosecution case that is being put against them. At the moment it could be a person like Mr Liddy, for instance, who has received a great deal of publicity. If he were to be charged with another offence and have to go through the system, I am sure there would be at least some consideration as to whether the public view of him was so—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, but I am just saying that if he were to come up again—or Mr von Einem, for example. My point is that this can happen and in these cases we say the circumstances might mean that a person never ever has to meet the charges against them because they get a permanent stay of proceedings. That is not in the interests of justice.

In those rare cases where such a thing might happen, at the initiative of the accused person—this is not at the initiative of the Crown, this is at the initiative of the accused person because they are asking for the stay, not the Crown—we are simply saying here that, if an accused person says, 'I have been so contaminated by or so dusted up by publicity that I don't think I can get a fair trial,' and if the court is minded to actually grant a stay, they can say, 'Well, given that you've applied for this and given that a stay might be on the agenda what we'll do is with judge alone, so you still get to be heard in court.' I cannot see how that is a worse outcome than possibly having a permanent stay and that person never being put on trial and the public having that person either convicted or acquitted. I just do not see how that is a better proposition.

I accept absolutely that this is not going to be the sort of matter that will be in the courts every day. But, mark my words, this will come up at some stage, and when it does come up and there is the inevitable howl from various quarters, including I suspect some people sitting not too far from me about how outrageous this is that some awful miscreant is not being put on trial, I will quietly refer them to the leather bound pages of Hansard.

Ms Chapman: There aren't any!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Alright, well the unbound pages of Hansard on the computer machine, and I will say to them, 'There was a day when we all had the opportunity to put the prophylactic measure in place, to have the stitch in time,' and I will say, 'Ye of little faith—those who let the conservative within mug them—have failed the people.' We will have what undoubtedly would be a person charged with very serious offences potentially getting a permanent stay because there is no other way of dealing with the matter, because this would prevent the legal cul-de-sac into which that person would be put, being an end of the matter. This would mean that that person would never be permanently in that cul-de-sac. It would mean this person could actually get a trial and their case be disposed of one way or the other.

I accept that this will not happen every day—I accept that—but, nonetheless, it is an important piece of housekeeping. As the all-pervasive nature of the new media in particular becomes worse and worse and worse (and I use the word 'worse' deliberately), the risk of these sorts of problems emerging becomes greater and greater and greater.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: Attorney, why did you not consult with the law reform commission on this bill?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, first, there is no law reform commission. If the member for Bragg is talking about the Law Reform Institute, which is a body that is a joint venture between the Attorney-General's Department, the Law Society and the University of Adelaide, I think it is important for me to explain that that body occasionally does project work. The work is done as and when it feels it is able to do that work, and whether or not they choose to do work is a matter for the board, the governing council or whatever is its formal title. It is a matter for them to choose. I have used them on occasions to do project work on the basis that I have made a suggestion to them: would you be prepared to look at this or that? They have a meeting and they either decide yes we can or no we cannot, and that depends on whether they have a number of people interested, whether they have resources and various other things.

It is not my practice normally to refer matters to them, and up until now what I have been asking them to look at for me (and on one occasion I think they have actually asked me whether I was happy with them looking at something), are things which, in the ordinary course, would not have been high enough up the list of priorities for me or the legislative services people in Attorney-General's Department to get the time to focus on, and this was not one of those things. This was something I thought was a matter that was pretty clear and self-evident. This progressed as did many of the other things that happened in terms of the agenda of AGD: they go through our internal policy process, they go to cabinet, they go to parliamentary counsel and they come here.

Ms CHAPMAN: Regarding the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Chief Judge of the District Court who, of course, oversee courts that utilise the juries, we have no information from them as to what their view is. Is there any reason why they were not asked to present an indication one way or the other as to whether this was a good idea?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I cannot recall specifically off the top of my head whether I had a chat with them about it—I think I did. I think I spoke to the Chief Justice, certainly. As for Senior Judge Muecke—I am not quite sure. I think it is generally the case that the courts are now taking the approach that there are things which are a matter of policy; they are essentially a matter for the executive government, and I suspect this may be very much one of those things as far as the courts are concerned. I am advised that we have sent a copy of this to them and received no response at all.

Ms CHAPMAN: Regarding the consultation with the judiciary, on the basis that they may have an indication from you, as Attorney, that the government has a certain view or a policy that they propose to implement and that they will not be invited to make a contribution on it and they take it on the chin—to the extent that it is a policy of the government rather than something they would be asked about—are there some criteria which the government applies as to when you would ask them about something and their view on it in respect of any practice of their court, particularly something as obvious as the use of juries which, according to the information from your office, under your hand costs about $2 million a year?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think, with respect, the member for Bragg might have misunderstood what I said. We have written to them, I am advised, and provided them with copies of this and made the suggestion that they may wish to comment on it, but my advice is that they have not responded.

The second point is that I do not go around telling them whether something is policy or not. I certainly have never lined them up and said, 'Well, you cannot have a comment on this because it is policy.' That is not part of my thinking. All I was trying to explain to you is that that is part of their thinking. I am quite happy for them to comment on any bill I send them. I am quite relaxed about whether they traverse this magic line of policy or whatnot because that is not one of my constructs.

The point I am trying to make is that, from their point of view—I have had it explained to me on more than one occasion—there are certain matters they do not regard as being matters that are properly within their scope to comment upon because they are matters of policy and therefore for the executive government. You must understand I am explaining to you that is something on which they choose to restrict their comments. It is not something where I tell them, 'I don't want to hear your comment because of that.' Does that make sense?

Ms CHAPMAN: When did you send them a copy of the bill?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised, as soon as it was introduced in the last session. So, that is last year.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Ms CHAPMAN: The suggestion, as reported on 26 February 2015 in The Advertiser, is that the plan to introduce legislation of this nature followed the arrest of Shannon McCoole, who I have referred to and the details of whose case we do not need to go into. I do not think he has actually been sentenced yet so, although there is a plea of guilty being referred to, I will not comment about that particularly. But at this point, then, and prior to the introduction was there any consultation with the judiciary?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I have already answered that question. As I am advised, they were provided with a copy of this bill back whenever it was that we first brought it in last year and have been invited to comment on it and, again, my advice is that they have not. Can I just add this: it is my practice that, when we have a bill, either at the time it is introduced or in some instances in preparation of it—bearing in mind that the bill that is introduced into the parliament has to be approved by the parliamentary party and it has to be approved by the cabinet, and the normal progress of things is the cabinet meets on Monday, the parliamentary party meets on Tuesday, notice would be given on Tuesday, and introduction would occur on Wednesday—as a matter of formality the actual final form of a bill is not approved by cabinet until that Monday.

Now, it is certainly the case that as soon as we get to the point of introducing a bill it is our standard practice that it gets sent off to the courts because they may have a view about whether the drafting is okay or whether or not there might be some unintended consequence, and they routinely write and draw our attention to bits and pieces of that nature or whether it will achieve the desired purpose. Sometimes they respond and sometimes they obviously do not feel there is anything they necessarily have to respond about.

Ms CHAPMAN: But on this occasion your recollection is that the time of that process of introduction, or one or two days before, was the first that that material had been provided to the senior judiciary for comment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will make it clear. I have no personal memory of any of this at all because, with the number of times I send stuff out for consultation and the number of times my staff do, expecting me to be able to summon a recollection of these particular matters is just not possible. I am merely advising the house of what I am informed by my advisers. Now, I am not warranting that is the first time. All I am saying is I am told, and I have no reason to disbelieve, that as soon as this thing was tabled in the parliament at some point late last year a copy was sent off to them inviting any comment they might wish to make and that thus far there has been none.

Ms CHAPMAN: And so from July, which is the time of the arrest, and your consideration that this was a good initiative to pursue, you would have continued to have monthly meetings with the Chief Justice and the chief judge, I take it, and discussed issues like the financial position of the courts, development of a new court building, and all the usual things that an attorney would discuss with the senior members of the judiciary. Surely it would not be beyond your wit to say to them, 'Look, I am also thinking about some other reform, not just sentencing reform to try and cut down the court wait list and so on, but I am also thinking about introducing what is going to be a bit novel. I want to be able to address an ill which could happen and this is what I think.' Surely you would remember to tell the Chief Justice that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I may well have done. I meet with the Chief Justice, as you say—I do not know if it is six weekly or whatever—and we have an agenda and sometimes we confine ourselves to the agenda and sometimes things move on.

The agenda sometimes is made up of stuff I have put on there, sometimes it is stuff he has put on there, usually it is a bit of both. Whether this was discussed either because it was put on there by me as an agenda item at some point in time or whether it was just a 'by the way', I honestly do not know. I would not be surprised if I had talked to him about it. I talk to him about a great many things—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know. I would expect so. If we talked about it and if he had expressed great dissatisfaction, I probably would have remembered that, but I do not remember anything one way or the other.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Ms CHAPMAN: In addition to the moneys that are paid, small as they may be, to jurors themselves for a daily attendance rate, the estimate provided by your office of the costs of dealing with juries per year is $2,131,655.76, which is some addition of all the costs of people who are associated with administration staff to manage, empanel, etc., the juries. I think in addition to that are the payments made to the jurors separately, but I am assuming they are fairly minor. How many cases a year are currently being heard by juries?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have absolutely no idea; I would have to take that on notice. I make the point that I do not believe that is information that is actually held by the Attorney-General's Department. I think that would be information which would be held by the Courts Administration Authority. I am quite happy to ask them to tell me that; whether they do is a matter for them, because I do not exactly know what they record and in what form. I do not have the capacity to tell them how to do those things. I am happy to ask them, but that is about as far as I can take it. I am happy to ask them.

Ms CHAPMAN: When we asked about the cost of administering juries, that information was provided, under your letter, confirming that the Courts Administration Authority confirmed that information and provided the detail. If you asked them how many cases come before their juries in the Supreme or District courts per year, they would soon be able to tell you. I do not doubt for one moment that that information would be provided, Attorney, and I am surprised that you would even think that there would some kind of incapacity or reluctance on their part.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am trying to explain here that I will ask them. If they have it at their fingertips, I am reasonably confident they will give it to me. All I am saying is that they do not necessarily record information for the same purposes as I might be interested in having information recorded or for the reasons the deputy leader might wish to have information recorded. They have information recorded for their own purposes. I agree with the deputy leader. It is highly likely they have this information easily accessible; I would expect they would. I am simply making the point that I do not know what they have. I will ask them, and I would expect that if they have it I will receive it, and I will be happy to pass it on.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the course of inquiring about that information as to the number of cases—and I am not sure whether this is still the case—I am assuming that juries are empanelled for a fixed period. I have not looked at the Juries Act recently, but it might be 30 days or two months or something of that nature where they have to be available and on duty to do their cases for a fixed period. Could we have an identification of what cases have been heard by those juries as they are then constituted for whatever that period is?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not sure I understand that question.

Ms CHAPMAN: If there are 12 juries that are ultimately operational for the year, i.e., one set of people per month is empanelled and they are on duty—from my recollection, that is how it used to apply. There was a fixed period and a number of jurors would be called in. We would have the usual challenges, they would be selected and then they basically had to be available for a certain period. They might hear four drug cases or they might hear one murder case, and it might go past that time period for which they would normally be expected to be available, in which case presumably the arrangement was that that would continue or they would be called back in or whatever occurred.

I am not sure what the current arrangement is but, for each period that new juries are empanelled, could we have some data concerning how many cases they heard, what was the charge of the case and whether in fact they had a trial or whether in fact it was listed and perhaps a plea of guilty was entered, for example, and then they were no longer required? Can we have that data?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If I could take the answer I gave the honourable member to her last question and put the exponent to the power of 10 above it, that gives you some idea what answer I think I need to give to that question. I will give you this undertaking, member for Bragg: I am happy to literally take that passage from Hansard and send that to the courts and ask them to provide that information.

I am not very optimistic that that will result in what the honourable member may be looking for because I am very concerned that much of the information the honourable member is looking for, in the form it might be sought, is simply not recorded. I am happy to ask the question, as long as the honourable member is clear that I do not have the power to direct them what information to record or how to record it. They do what they do according to their own lights and, if they have that material, I am confident they will give it to me upon making a request.

Ms CHAPMAN: If the information is not available in that form, can the Attorney inquire as to the number of cases that came before a jury in the last 12 months—it can be a calendar year or the financial year, if that is easier—the nature of the crime and the days of sitting before the jury?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am happy to try to interrogate the system for answers to all those questions—in fact, I would like nothing more—and I join with the member for Bragg in thinking it would be nice to have answers to all those questions. I will convey those questions but, as I make clear, we are not talking about information that is held by the Attorney-General's Department, so my capacity to influence the information that is being collected or the way it is being stored or the way it is capable of being interrogated is zero.

Ms Chapman: Retrieved.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Retrieved, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: In terms of the costs as provided, which are over $2 million a year, is the Attorney able to tell the parliament whether there have been any occasions when the Chief Justice, as the head of the CAA, has presented to you a proposal for the abolition of juries as a cost-saving measure?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe the Chief Justice has ever proposed to me the abolition of juries as a cost-saving measure. I think there was an occasion at some stage where there was a conversation about juries from the perspective of whether the period of their empanelling should be longer or shorter, which I do not think was specifically relating to cost. I would be merely guessing now as to whether it was to do with regional things or what it was to do with, but I have no recollection of any occasion—and I am sure I would—where it has been suggested that we get rid of juries to save money.

Ms CHAPMAN: Have there been any presentations to you by the Chief Justice or any other stakeholder, if I can put it in general terms—Law Society, Bar Association or the like—to amend the Juries Act in any event, on any other proposed amendments?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Again, these questions are sort of coming without notice, which is fine, but I have no recall of any of those people asking me to amend the Juries Act.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Ms CHAPMAN: This clause effectively provides for a trial without a jury—an order of the Supreme Court or the District Court being made to direct that there be a judge-alone trial in a circumstance where the accused might apply for a stay of the proceedings. In the last 12 months, has there been any application in the Supreme Court or the District Court for a stay of proceedings as a result of adverse publicity?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I honestly have no idea. I can take that on notice and see if we can find out, but whatever the answer to that is, given what I have been trying to explain about this whole matter, it is neither six of one nor half a dozen of the other. The point is basically this: these circumstances will occur very, very rarely. I accept that, and I have said that from the beginning. So, whether there is a number of applications for stays this year, or none this year and four next year or whatever the case might be, is really just not much to the point, but I will ask.

Ms CHAPMAN: As indicated, one of the bases of proceeding with this application was, as you say in the second reading, 'The public's demand to know and the media's determination to sensationalise is ever present.' I do not recall from anything in your second reading that there was a problem with social media or electronic information. Is this a new issue that you have referred to in the rebuttal as something which is important and which you say has a bearing on this?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I have mentioned it before. I would be surprised if there was not some mention of it in the second reading speech. There may not be, but I was stating the obvious, which is that we not only have to deal with the conventional media these days which, depending on your point of view, is either okay or not very okay at all in terms of responsible reporting, but then there is this whole new galaxy of unknown, irresponsible, unaccountable individuals on iPhones.

I am also reminded that, once upon a time, it might have been the case where you could have solved such a problem by changing the venue. So, a matter being heard in Port Augusta, if this occurred, could have been moved to Mount Gambier, and the local people would not—

Ms Chapman: They have television and newspapers in Mount Gambier and Port Augusta.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am just saying; that is a very different situation to now, with the ubiquitous mobile phone, which apparently even now comes into meetings. I have even heard of it being used in parliament. This ubiquitous piece of—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I said I had heard; I have never had it confirmed. This ubiquitous piece of plastic with metal in it is now dominating everything.

Ms CHAPMAN: Also on 26 February this year you were quoted in respect of proposing the laws:

…following the arrest of Shannon McCoole, who was accused of 'particularly vile allegations of child sexual abuse being made against a child care worker in the employ of Families SA'.

In the second reading debate I and other members raised the fact that on the occasion of the arrest of this particular person, statements were made by the Premier at the press conference, including statements along the lines that the allegations involved acts of evil, which of course became headlines surrounding this case. In the last 12 months, have there been any other cases where someone has been charged with offences that can go before a jury (serious indictable cases) where the Premier has made statements about the arrest and/or charge of these cases?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer to that is a matter of public record. I do not recall any others. I do recall that this was a particularly confronting matter, and I note that the individual concerned has apparently pleaded guilty. However, for the same reasons as the deputy leader, I will not canvass that matter any further.

Ms CHAPMAN: Have you cautioned the Premier against making public statements that could result in sensationalised media reports, as he has referred to?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not quite sure how I can answer that question, other than to say—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not think we can canvass that.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Are we putting clause 4? No.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: I can hear some squeaking in the background.

The CHAIR: We need to concentrate. We have four minutes to finish this or adjourn it or report progress.

Mr Gardner: She's defying you. The member on your right is defying you.

The CHAIR: You are all defying me this morning.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there a process where you agree with the police commissioner? I note that we are about to have a new one; I saw that on the front page of the paper this morning. Is there a process where the government has any discussion with the police commissioner before there is an announcement or a press conference on these matters, as to whether the police commissioner takes the run on a matter or whether in fact the government minister should get involved in serious cases where a jury application or an application for a stay may be prejudiced?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: To the best of my recollection, this is a matter which is, as they say in the law, sui generis, and I do not believe that there is an established protocol about how you deal with these matters. They are dealt with if and when they bob up. I do not think it is a situation where there is some protocol as to who says what and so forth.

Ms CHAPMAN: As Attorney, have you made any public statements in the last 12 months in respect of cases where this act would apply? By that I mean in respect of public statements for press conferences and the like regarding these cases?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe I have. I am a person of few words.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (12:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.