HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-05-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.A. Darley:

That the Legislative Review Committee inquire into and report on:

1. The effects on the court system and its participants of extending the right for victims to deliver a victim impact statement in any court to cases where the defendant has been convicted of a summary offence that has caused serious harm, that being harm that endangers, or is likely to endanger, a person's life, or harm that consists of, or is likely to result in, loss of, or serious and protracted impairment of, a part of the body or a physical or mental function, or harm that consists of, or is likely to result in, serious disfigurement.

2. The current effects and consequences for the court system and its participants of allowing a victim to submit a victim impact statement in the court for an indictable offence.

3. The types of systems, facilities and services that should be in place to aid and assist victims involved in the criminal justice system.

4. Any other relevant matters.

(Continued from 8 April 2009. Page 1931.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:26): I rise to indicate that the opposition will support this motion, which will not surprise the council because it is an issue that has been well thrashed out in the context of the government's Victims of Crime Bill. The opposition's view is that the Legislative Review Committee is an appropriate body to consider the interaction of the victim impact statement provisions and the operations of our courts.

The fact is that the state has had a very noble tradition of attorneys-general who have been concerned about the possibility of floodgates being opened as victim impact statements are made available to more and more victims. That is why, over the past three or four years, this council has had a tug-of-war (shall we say) with the Attorney-General about the scope of victims who can have access to victim impact statements, and the opposition notes that in that context the Attorney-General is one of a long line of attorneys-general who have been very cautious about expanding the scope of victim impact statements. I am told that, on each occasion attorneys-general raise concerns about the floodgates opening, they say that the courts would be overwhelmed by victims wanting to take up their rights to make victim impact statements.

In recent years this Legislative Council has been adamant that it wants to expand the scope of victim impact statements, and opposition members feel that, in the context of these two bills, in recent years the government has been too conservative—as it is in many areas relating to victims' rights. The Hon. John Darley, a very reasonable man, wanted not merely to assert the amendments but also to test the arguments put forward by the government. I believe his proposal to have this issue referred to the Legislative Review Committee for consideration is an extremely positive step; it is an opportunity, if you like, for the parliament to test its assumption that the executive is being too cautious in expanding the rights of victims.

I commend this motion to the council. It is an opportunity for us to be better informed about the way our laws impact on the operation of the justice system. I believe that, in bringing forward this motion, the Hon. John Darley does a service not merely to victims of criminal offences but also to the criminal justice system by ensuring that those who have responsibility for administering justice in our state are given sufficient resources to achieve that role.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (17:29): Only the Hon. Mr Wade could chastise the government for being too conservative; it is good to see the Liberal Movement is alive and well in this place. The government opposes the motion.

I commence by commending the Hon. John Darley on his evident commitment to the interests of victims of crime, for which he has consistently advocated since taking office in this chamber, and the Hon. Mr Darley will be aware of a number of government contributions in the past in response to his initiatives in this regard—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): Order!

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I draw honourable members' attention to contributions of that kind, particularly in addressing the Hon. Mr Darley's amendments to government legislation. Most recently, on 28 April this year, the Leader of the Government (Hon. Paul Holloway) made remarks during the committee stage regarding an amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Darley to the Statutes Amendment (Victims of Crime) Bill.

The government reiterates those concerns about the potential for further pressure on the courts system were we to adopt the Hon. Mr Darley's definition about when victim impact statements should be permitted. However, I commend the Hon. Mr Darley for seeking to use the parliamentary committee system as it was intended, that is, to address issues of concern to members, rather than setting up yet another select committee to waste time and resources.

While the government opposes the motion, I acknowledge that the Hon. Mr Wade has indicated the opposition's support, and I indicate to the Hon. Mr Darley that, if a majority of members support his motion, I do not intend to divide on the question.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:31): I thank honourable members for their contribution, especially those who have indicated their support for the motion. I believe this inquiry will provide an opportunity to review the way in which we deal with victims of crime in South Australia, as well as to look more particularly at the way in which victim impact statements are delivered in court.

Since I moved the motion, there has been a very clear example of the importance of this inquiry and the need for victim impact statements in all courts. My staff recently attended court for the sentencing of Diemould Tooling in the Industrial Court. The company was charged with failing to maintain a safe workplace, which resulted in the death of Daniel Madeley. His mother, Andrea Madeley, who wanted to read a victim impact statement in the court, was shocked when she was told that she had no right under the law to read out her statement in the court while the defendant was present.

She thought that surely legislation would have been passed giving her that right, as three years ago she had strongly advocated to have that legislation passed as soon as possible. Fortunately, the judge in this case granted her leave to read her statement, but not before the defendant's solicitor stood up in court and said that there was no law that gave her the right to do so. It was only through the indulgence of the court that she was able to continue. I am told that there were a few nervous moments, as Andrea Madeley had waited six long years for the matter to be finalised in the court and for her to have the opportunity to read her statement.

For her, this opportunity was vital in terms of putting on the record how her son's death had affected her life and being given the right to have the defendant hear the many questions she asked about why they had allowed her son to work under such conditions. This opportunity to read her victim impact statement enabled her to have some closure in terms of getting justice for her son. With those few words, I commend the motion to members.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT