Summary Procedure (Service) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: I would like to thank the honourable members who contributed to the debate on this bill. The bill amends the Summary Procedure Act 1921 to modernise and improve the way information is exchanged within the criminal justice system. It aims to increase efficiency and benefit the community by saving time and money, reducing delays and increasing accessibility within the justice sector. As always, community safety and access to justice remain paramount. The bill upholds these important principles, while increasing efficiency for the justice sector.

On 3 August this year, the Hon. Mr McLachlan asked a number of questions during his contribution to the second reading of the bill. I will now provide answers to those questions. Turning first to the honourable member's question regarding the service of summonses, the Commissioner of Police has advised the Attorney-General and myself that SAPOL currently serves summonses in two ways: traditional service and via the CAN+ process.

With regard to traditional service, section 27 of the Summary Procedure Act 1921 provides that a summons must be served personally on the defendant or:

(b) leaving the same for him at his last or most usual place of abode or of business with some other person, apparently an inmate thereof or employed thereat, and apparently not less than sixteen years of age.

Service of summons on the legal representative of a defendant is not defined as service under the act. I would also note that the act allows some summonses to be served by post. SAPOL also employs an alternative process to the traditional service of the summons. It is called the Court Attendance Notification (CAN+). It is a formalised process whereby SAPOL notifies the defendant of their impending court date and location. The CAN+ process commences once specific criteria based on the classification of the events charged are met.

A nominated member of South Australia Police attempts to make contact with a defendant by telephone. If contact is made, the defendant is advised of the court date and location and is advised to attend court. An email address is requested from the defendant to allow SAPOL to provide the defendant with an electronic copy of a summary of police allegations, Legal Services Commission information and the court date, time and location in email form.

If police are unable to make contact with the defendant or are of the view that the defendant will not comply with the Court Attendance Notification process, the traditional summons service is initiated. The benefit of the CAN+ process is through the early provision of the summary of evidence. The defendant is able to engage legal counsel at the earliest opportunity, reducing unnecessary adjournments by the courts.

At the time of initial interaction with a defendant it is not standard practice for an investigating officer to request the identity of an accused person's legal representative. This is particularly the case in summary matters. SAPOL's experience is that many defendants do not retain legal representatives and are not in a position to provide a contact solicitor's name.

As summonses are generally served prior to a first appearance in court, there is a limited opportunity for an investigating officer to identify an accused person's legal representative if they have not previously been represented in court. Even then, clients routinely change counsel. It is only through direct contact post apprehension with an accused person that a legal representative may be identified.

Failure to make contact via telephone requires an investigating officer to attend the home address of a defendant to make direct contact. Due to confidentiality provisions, where a summons is not served only the details of the investigating officer are provided.

SAPOL advise me that the amendments proposed within this bill provide for the issuance of a summons at the time of initial police interaction, meaning greater certainty to the defendant and reducing anxiety associated with police attendance at a home address. SAPOL also advise that internal policy and processes are under development to facilitate implementation of the bill's provisions.

On the other questions asked by the honourable member, I am also advised that the government maintains the commitment to maintain an open dialogue with the Legal Services Commission on the impacts of this bill and of the Electronic Transactions (Legal Proceedings) Amendment Bill 2017 when they come into operation. I am advised that the electronic case management system for the state courts is still under development. I commend this bill to members.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I thank the minister for his response to my questions at the second reading. The Liberal Party will support the progression of the bill through the committee stage. I do not have any questions.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 17), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (15:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.