<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2012-11-13" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>52</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="2647" />
  <endPage num="2693" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Evidence (Reporting on Sexual Offences) Amendment Bill</name>
      <text id="20121113220bd4cb27d7434e90000547">
        <heading>EVIDENCE (REPORTING ON SEXUAL OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Second Reading</name>
        <text id="20121113220bd4cb27d7434e90000548">
          <heading>Second Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="20121113220bd4cb27d7434e90000549">Adjourned debate on second reading.</text>
        <text id="20121113220bd4cb27d7434e90000550">(Continued from 18 October 2012.)</text>
        <talker role="member" id="3404" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. J.A. DARLEY</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <startTime time="2012-11-13T17:28:00" />
          <page num="2683" />
          <text id="20121113220bd4cb27d7434e90000551">
            <timeStamp time="2012-11-13T17:28:00" />
            <by role="member" id="3404">The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:28):</by>  I rise very briefly to speak on the Evidence (Reporting on Sexual Offences) Amendment Bill. The arguments for and against the need for this bill have already been canvassed by my colleagues the Hons Ann Bressington and Stephen Wade. The Law Society of South Australia in its submission has made some valid points regarding the devastating impact that the disclosure of an accused's identity can have on that individual in sexual offence cases.</text>
          <text id="20121113220bd4cb27d7434e90000552">At the risk of repeating what has already been placed on the record by other members, I am sympathetic to the Law Society's view that an accused person who is innocent in the eyes of the law will forever be considered guilty by the community of what is arguably one of the most heinous of all crimes. As a general observation, the Law Society has adopted the view that sexual offences are a special class of offences in that they tend to attract a stigma for both the assailant and the victim and are more liable to false reporting than any other type of offence. Their position is that the combination of these two factors distinguish sexual offences from other offences and as such there should be no publication of an accused's identity unless guilt has been determined by a court.</text>
          <text id="20121113220bd4cb27d7434e90000553">Under normal circumstances, I do not think many of us would question courts exercising their discretion in lifting a suppression order, particularly where it is considered reasonable in the investigation of an offence or where it is otherwise in the public interest to do so. This bill comes down to the question of whether we are dealing with circumstances that are so out of the ordinary that this discretion should not exist.</text>
          <text id="20121113220bd4cb27d7434e90000554">The Law Society canvasses many issues which have not been addressed in this bill, but on the question of the discretion of the court they state that courts should be given the discretion to order publication of any information of whatsoever nature in any case in appropriate circumstances. This includes information identifying the accused or complainant in a sex case. My office has spoken with a representative from the Law Society about this matter in terms of whether this position still stands, even without other changes that they have recommended. My advice is that it does.</text>
          <text id="20121113220bd4cb27d7434e90000555">My office has also spoken to Mr Tony Kerin, President of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, and I am advised that ALA supports the legislation as it stands on the basis that it appears to be working well but are not in principle opposed to a judicial discretion. I am concerned about the ramifications that the disclosure of an accused identity can have on their lives where they are ultimately found not guilty by the courts. I am equally concerned about inflexible rules potentially leading to unjust results, and I can see the merit in giving the courts more flexibility in dealing with these cases.</text>
          <text id="20121113220bd4cb27d7434e90000556">Having said that, I would question whether these measures are actually necessary or indeed whether they will result in a different outcome. One would expect that any decision to disclose an accused's identity would not be made lightly and that the courts would exercise extreme caution in coming to such a determination. That said, I will not oppose the bill on the basis that in practical terms I do not think it will make a difference. Finally, with respect to the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendments, whilst I fully acknowledge the arguments raised in relation to an open system of justice, I indicate that I will not be supporting those amendments. With that, I support the second reading of the bill.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="1821" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. G.E. GAGO</name>
          <house>Legislative Council</house>
          <portfolios>
            <portfolio id="">
              <name>Minister for Agriculture</name>
            </portfolio>
            <portfolio id="">
              <name>Minister for Forests</name>
            </portfolio>
            <portfolio id="">
              <name>Minister for Regional Development</name>
            </portfolio>
            <portfolio id="">
              <name>Minister for Tourism</name>
            </portfolio>
            <portfolio id="">
              <name>Minister for the Status of Women</name>
            </portfolio>
          </portfolios>
          <startTime time="2012-11-13T17:32:00" />
          <text id="20121113220bd4cb27d7434e90000557">
            <timeStamp time="2012-11-13T17:32:00" />
            <by role="member" id="1821">The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (17:32): </by> I understand there are no further second reading contributions indicated on this bill. I thank honourable members for their second reading contributions and their support for this important piece of legislation and I look forward to its being dealt with expeditiously through committee.</text>
          <text id="20121113220bd4cb27d7434e90000558">Bill read a second time.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>