Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Statutes Amendment (Victims of Crime) Bill STATUTES AMENDMENT (VICTIMS OF CRIME) BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 23 October, 2007. Page 1086.) The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (15:37): I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on the bill. First, I touch on the point mentioned by the Hon. Robert Lawson in relation to the matters raised by a member in another place. The member invited the Attorney-General to consider whether the presumption in favour of bail should be reversed only when there has been a persistent or significant breach of the bail agreement. The member gave the example of a bail agreement involving a curfew and the offender's coming home half an hour or so late and, therefore, being technically in breach. The government will not pursue this suggestion. To begin with, the member's example is not really on point. Why would a curfew be imposed for the protection of the victim? A more realistic example is a condition imposed under which the vendor must not contact the victim. In that case, a trivial breach is unlikely. Secondly, the terminology is imprecise. What is a 'significant' breach? Offenders caught by the proposed provision would not be automatically remanded in custody, and the question of the gravity of the breach is best left to the court to decide whether to grant or revoke bail. Thirdly, the suggestion would overly complicate bail hearings because the threshold question of whether the breach is substantial or persistent must be decided first. That would be only for the purpose of determining whether or not the presumption in favour of bail is reversed. It would be easier to say that there has been a breach, the presumption is automatically reversed and then let the court decide whether or not the gravity of the breach warrants bail being revoked. I foreshadow that the government will move one technical amendment at the committee stage to close a loophole that has recently come to light. It is designed to stop offenders victimising minors during court proceedings for compensation. I commend the bill to the council. Bill read a second time. Committee Stage Committee Stage In committee. Clauses 1 to 15 passed. New clause 15A. The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move: After clause 15— Insert: 15A—Amendment of section 18—application for compensation Section 18—after subsection (4) insert: (4a) If— (a) the claimant is a child or other person who is not of full legal capacity; and (b) the Crown Solicitor and the person acting on behalf of the claimant propose to settle the claim for statutory compensation by agreement; and (c) an application is made to a court for an order or orders in respect of that agreement, the offender must not be joined as a party to the proceedings before the court on that application. This amendment closes a loophole in the act that has only recently come to light. Any application for compensation by a child or a person who is not of full legal capacity has to be ratified by a court. Under the act as it presently stands, the offender must be a party to those proceedings and therefore can question the victim in court. This gives the offender a further chance to harass and demonise the victim, with the possibility that significant trauma can again be inflicted on him or her. Victims who have reached the age of majority and are legally capable can agree with the Crown on the quantum of compensation without having to go to court, so they can avoid that further victimisation. This amendment closes the loophole in the case of victims who are minors or legally incompetent by providing that the offender must not be joined as a party to those proceedings before the court in which a compensation payment is ratified. However, the offender is still able to question the quantum of compensation both in the informal proceedings during the initial investigation by the Crown and in the formal proceedings for recovery of that compensation from the offender later on. New clause inserted. Remaining clauses (16 and 17) passed. Bill reported with amendment; committee’s report adopted. Third Reading Third Reading Bill read a third time and passed.