Bills

Summary Offences (Disrespectful Conduct in Court) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

Debate resumed.

Clause 2.

Mr PICTON: Bring back the former member for Schubert, I say. I think what Attorney-General has just said is quite incredible, in that with this bill, which is supposed to be about supporting the judiciary and helping out the judiciary, we have the judiciary telling the parliament that they do not support this bill. That is absolutely staggering. In terms of the powers that the judiciary currently has, which is contempt of court, I wonder if the Attorney-General can provide the parliament with the stats in terms of how many people in the past year have been charged or imprisoned on a contempt of court charge?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the Courts Administration Authority has advised that it does not maintain formal records on the number of charges or convictions for contempt committed in the face of the court. There is certainly nothing in our annual reports, but this is the advice we have from the CAA. It is not possible to speculate about the prevalence of contempt in our courts and tribunals. In many instances, disrespectful or disruptive parties are informally dealt with by a judge or magistrate through alternative means, such as being given a formal warning rather than being charged with an offence for contempt. Frankly, we would expect that to occur in the first instance in any event. I am happy to give you some further detail on that but, in short, they do not keep any data.

Mr Picton: What about Corrections? Do Corrections keep that data?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No.

Mr Picton: Who has been in prison, they wouldn't keep records?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, but they do not keep a record of what the charges are.

Mr PICTON: Given there is now no information in terms of how many people are in contempt of court in South Australia, if any, I wonder if the Attorney-General has information on how many people have been charged under the New South Wales legislation, which supposedly this law is going to be based on.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I am aware that there have been two charges under their law, with one conviction; one was quite recent. In that matter, the accused was convicted, I am advised, of nine counts of failing to stand and sentenced to 75 hours of community service. Confirming how effective that can be, it can be dealt with summarily, executed and sentenced.

Mr PICTON: Not a very strenuous penalty was imposed there. Given what the Attorney-General was referring to in terms of her knowledge of the Law Society's submission, has she given any consideration to whether there should be a defence for being physically unable to stand, and should there be a defence for any mental health concerns that a person might have as well?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The feature of the bill is that the offence will apply only to relevant parties who intentionally engage in conduct which is disrespectful to the court. People with physical or mental incapacities, who involuntarily engage in conduct which may be viewed as disrespectful according to the usual standards and conventions of a court, will not be captured by the offence. For example, a person who is in a wheelchair and is wheelchair-bound and unable to stand before a judge would not meet the requirements of the offence. By contrast, a person who deliberately fails to stand after being requested to do so by the presiding judicial officer may still be acting disrespectfully, even if the person did not intend to cause disrespect by remaining seated.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr PICTON: Why has the Attorney-General made the decision not to graduate offences based on the level of seriousness?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Largely, we leave that to the discretion of the court because they can do just that. There are maximums that are prescribed and, of course, they can do anything underneath that.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney-General outline why a decision was made not to include the requirement for a warning to be made for disrespectful behaviour? Are judges able to have that discretion and, if so, why is that not a feature of the legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They have that discretion. They exercise it now. They give warnings plenty of times. If any members of the house have not been down to the courtrooms to see how they operate, I urge them to do so. They would quite often see the edict from the bench indicating that certain consequences will occur if there is not a change of behaviour. Sometimes it is to barristers, sometimes to the witness and sometimes to the accused or others. They have that power already. There is no need to legislate for it. They exercise it when they consider it prudent. We leave it as their responsibility to then determine what the appropriate course of action is in that regard.

Mr PICTON: Given that the Attorney-General said that she is basing this legislation on the New South Wales legislation, why has she made the decision to increase the maximum penalty imposed from 14 days, times it by six, up to three months' imprisonment, particularly when we have seen, as evidenced by her, that the only penalty in place that has been imposed in New South Wales for seven counts, I think she said, was for 75 hours of community service?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The answer quite simply is that the penalties proposed here are consistent with what we already have in disorderly conduct charges in other law.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr PICTON: You will be glad to know we are winding down, Chairman. Can the Deputy Premier outline how she believes these penalties are consistent with what the courts impose, given that, in terms of contempt of court already, there are vastly different penalties in place under the current legislation in terms of the Magistrates Court and the Youth Court penalties?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is less than we have for contempt. It is consistent with disorderly conduct, which is an offence in itself under our current law, so it is both measured and consistent.

Mr PICTON: You will be glad to know that this is my last question, but I will reserve my right in case any follow-ups are required. Can the Attorney-General outline whether this bill covers the Independent Commission Against Corruption and any hearings that it might hold? Has she had any discussions with the commissioner in terms of how this would apply to his hearings?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Within the definition of 'court' in proposed subclause (7) it would be included but, because it does not have any parties, it would not apply.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:56): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.