Bills

Statutes Amendment (Criminal Proceedings) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 February 2025.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:01): I rise, as I have indicated to the government, to speak briefly to indicate the opposition's support for the bill and to encourage the passage of it. The government's speech is now before us and this has been the matter of some consideration, including in terms of it having a consequential difference to the draft that was circulated before it was introduced, consequentially by the Law Society's input into its caution about the use of the audiovisual link for trials. I am the lead speaker and I will not be too terribly long.

There was a draft of the bill that was circulated initially that proposed heading off into new territory to contemplate the widening of capacity for trials to be conducted with the defendant on audiovisual link. I think it is fair to say, in response to the advocacy of the Law Society and in particular its Criminal Law Committee, as summarised by letter from the then President of the Law Society to the Attorney dated 24 April 2024, that has been now confined to the use of such technology at sentencing; that is welcome. I want to draw attention to the important role that is played by the profession, both the Bar Association and the Law Society, in relation to legislation of this kind.

The remainder of the bill, insofar as it relates to juries and judges' capacity to make directions, are sensible improvements and those are welcome. I want to highlight that point that the society has raised about caution in relation to the broad use of AVL. Just to make good that point and for the sake of future reference, the Law Society highlights in particular, and I quote from paragraph 7 of its letter, that:

Noting the complexity of criminal trials, the ability of legal practitioners to obtain timely, detailed and confidential instructions from their client being physically present at trial is essential. It is unsatisfactory for that to be done remotely (and indeed for some clients that might not even be possible at all). In this regard, the assurance as to communications between lawyers and clients…does not provide the requisite detail to reassure practitioners. There is no substitute for being able to speak privately face to face.

That, I think, captures the caution and why the society welcomes the narrowing in terms of the use of AVL to sentencing. No doubt that will be the subject of ongoing scrutiny. This will be now something that we will see in practice and, as is always the case, the disposition of criminal trials is at its core a very practical matter. It involves those crucial interactions between particularly accused and those representing them, as well as the capacity for the court to be able to dispose of the business that is before it efficiently in the interest of justice for the whole of the community.

With that, I indicate again the opposition's support for the bill and look forward to working constructively with the government and, in this case, particularly valuably, with the profession in relation to reform going further in the future.

Mr BROWN (Florey) (12:06): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Statutes Amendment (Criminal Proceedings) Bill 2024. The bill seeks to strengthen the safe and efficient operation of South Australia's criminal justice system. Firstly, the bill proposes to amend the Juries Act 1927 to allow for a person summonsed for jury service to be excused by a judge from further attendance if their attendance would pose a risk to the safety or welfare of another person.

Secondly, the bill proposes to amend the Sentencing Act 2017 to broaden the class of defendants who may attend sentencing for indictable offences via audiovisual link to cover defendants who are in the community, as well as defendants who are in custody.

Under the current arrangements, there are various grounds on which a person may seek to be excused from attendance for the purpose of serving on a jury. These include recent jury service, ill health, conscientious objection, or a matter of special urgency or importance. However, under extant arrangements each of these requires an application from the prospective juror themselves. The bill before us proposes creating a limited ability for a person who is summonsed for jury service to be excused in the absence of an application from the juror where it is necessary for the protection of health or safety.

These reforms came about in part as a result of experience gained during the COVID-19 pandemic, when various health and safety protocols were put in place in relation to persons attending for jury service. A potential risk was identified whereby, if a particular person refused to comply with the protocols, they could only be invited to apply to be excused from jury service. There was no power for them to be excused on the court's own initiative if they declined to make an application themselves to be excused. This government considers that such a gap in the legislation is well worth addressing.

In the event of future situations wherein a risk may be identified to health and safety, irrespective of whether that is a risk scenario arising on a whole-of-community level or whether the risk exists in relation to the specific circumstances surrounding one particular person, it is important that avenues are available to the court through which such risks can be addressed. This will support and promote the health, safety and wellbeing of fellow jurors and of other court users, and indeed under certain circumstances the broader South Australian community may also be better protected.

The bill provides that, if the attendance of a prospective juror poses or would pose a risk to the safety or welfare of another person, a judge may issue a notice in writing excusing that person from further attendance. This may occur on a judge's own initiative or on the application of a court Sheriff. The Sheriff is responsible for managing persons who are summonsed for jury service, which makes them well placed to determine whether a particular prospective juror poses a health or safety risk, and then to present this risk to a judge for consideration.

The bill also proposes to amend the Courts Administration Act 1993 to provide that the State Courts Administrator's annual report must set out the number of times a person was excused from jury service under this section as well as the number of times Sheriffs made an application for a person to be excused, irrespective of the outcome of that application. This aims to embed an additional layer of transparency and accountability in relation to the use of this power.

This bill further proposes to amend the Sentencing Act 2017 to broaden the circumstances in which a defendant may attend sentencing for an indictable offence via audiovisual link. The rule is under current provisions, and will continue to be under new provisions, that a defendant should be physically present in the courtroom during sentencing proceedings for an indictable offence. This is appropriate in the normal practice because the defendant's actual presence in the courtroom assists the judge to connect with them when delivering sentencing remarks, particularly in Youth Court proceedings.

However, the Sentencing Act already contains exceptions to this rule, allowing attendance via audiovisual link in certain circumstances. The broadest exception, which is found in section 21(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act, provides that, if a defendant is in custody prior to sentencing, the court may deal with the proceedings by way of audiovisual link without requiring the in-person attendance of the defendant if the court is of the opinion that it is appropriate in the circumstances.

However, there is no equivalent exception available to defendants in the community. This bill seeks to expand the existing provisions for exceptions such that any defendant may attend sentencing proceedings via audiovisual link if the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances. It should be noted that defendants in the community must also consent to attending via audiovisual link. This aims to allow greater flexibility to defendants in the community to attend their sentencing proceedings remotely. This may be appropriate due to mobility concerns, illness or caring responsibilities, for example. The intention is that this reform will increase the accessibility of our justice system.

Section 14(5) of the Sentencing Act 2017 must ensure that the defendant is present when the statement is read out if the victim so wishes. The prosecution can make known to the court the victim's wishes as to the defendant's presence at sentencing, and this will form part of the court's consideration as to whether their application is appropriate.

The changes proposed in this bill are sensible reforms that seek to make processes of the court more efficient and more responsive to circumstances, to improve safety for those who use our courts, as well as to expand the accessibility of our justice system for those who engage with it. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (12:12): I thank all the people who have contributed to this bill in the other place, here and also, of course, the public servants who prepared it, and those who contributed during the consultation process to its improvement. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (12:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:14 to 14:00.