MAGISTRATES' COURT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1852 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 18 May 1994 The bill provides that any available evidence must people are perfectly valid. However, many ordinary be disclosed early in the preparation of the case, people do not pay the fines simply because they with a view to reducing both the length and cost of cannot. They do not have the money and the cases. Some misgivings have been expressed by resources to pay them. Asset seizure on people with members of the police force who are concerned that low incomes would only increase their the proposal may create a situation in which disadvantageous position. additional costs are imposed on the police force in prosecuting trials. They are concerned that those As the honourable member for Melbourne said, it conducting a defence may seek to call for evidence would certainly hit people on lower incomes or witnesses at great cost to the police simply to disproportionately harder than people on higher establish what evidence is available, despite all incomes. The provision would not so much affect along having the intention to plea bargain or even people using the cover of corporate shelf companies plead guilty. On balance the opposition believes the to avoid paying fines as it would affect people on positive aspects of the provision outweigh the low incomes with legitimate hardship. difficulties that might arise. However, the concerns expressed by members of the police force must be The evidence provided by the Attorney-General taken on board and the practice must be monitored suggesting that many people are deliberately and closely. vexatiously aVOiding fines is anecdotal. There is not much verifiable statistical evidence to suggest that The bill provides enforcement powers for the fine defaulters choose to go to gaol rather than collection of fines by the Sheriff's Office by way of paying because they Simply cannot afford to pay the asset seizure. It enhances the power of the Sheriff's fines and have no options. Office to collect unpaid fines under the penalty enforcement by registration of infringement notice, To a large degree the cause of fine defaulting is or PERIN, system. As the Attorney-General said, the associated with problems caused by the Sheriff's number of unpaid fines presents a growing problem. Office and its somewhat rigid and hierarchical However, it must be acknowledged that a significant structure. Morale is low; members of the Sheriff's number of people who default do so because of Office were offered departure packages and those genuine hardship. No doubt some people abuse the packages were later withdrawn. system and evade their obligations with ease. In 1992-93 some $131 million in outstanding fines was The level of resourcing to cover the increased due. Certainly the number of people who consider workload that the Sheriff's Office has been asked to imprisonment an option must be reduced because pick up is inadequate, and the workload will imprisonment is costly and should be the remedy of increase even further as a result of the proposed last resort. legislation. The government must ensure that it provides the necessary resources and funding to Nonetheless, I echo the misgivings expressed by the support the provisions in the legislation. It is not just honourable member for Melbourne, who said that a matter of legislating; the funding must be available the majority of people who default on fines are to ensure that the agency charged with the probably on low incomes or underprivileged in responsibility of carrying out the obligations under some ·other way and are not avoiding paying fines in this legislation has the manpower and resources to an attempt to be vexatious. No Significant verifiable do the job properly. That issue needs to be examined statistical evidence to the contrary seems to be seriously. available. As the honourable member for Melbourne pointed This provision represents an extremely substantial out, not many officers of the Sheriff's Office are shift in the legislation. It is a practice that was suitably trained for much of the work they are now previously confined to a civil jurisdiction, but it can required to do. That concern must be examined. If now be applied to a criminal jurisdiction as well. the government addressed many of the problems with the Sheriff's Office, it would find that the Many people can afford to pay fines but choose not number of unpaid fines would decrease to. In her second-reading speech the conSiderably. To a large extent, it is a matter of there Attorney-General referred to people who used shelf not being an adequate system of collection of fines companies to avoid paying parking fines and rather than people vexatiously refusing to pay them. whatever else. Nobody has much sympathy for those people, and the provisions that apply to those MAGISTRATES' COURT (AMENDMENT) BILL Wednesday, 18 May 1994 ASSEMBLY 1853 The solution of asset seizures is simplistic. The of court cases are the victims and not the offenders system will ultimately end up snaring people it did simply because their reputations have been not intend to snare. As the Attorney-General pointed questioned and what they have to be put through. out in her second-reading speech, the legislation seems to be geared at people who can pay fines but To enable the Magistrates Court to hear these cases in some vexatious way refuse to. However, the in camera and to suppress matters in relation to opposition believes the legislation will snare people those sorts of sexual offences is extremely positive. who simply cannot pay fines; people on low The excessive stress and trauma that many victims incomes and disadvantaged people will be the of sexual assault have to endure in court hearings hardest hit. The corporate fine evaders will not be can adversely affect their ability to give proper greatly troubled by this legislation; it will be the testimony. disadvantaged people who will be slugged by it. Of course, that compromises the integrity of the trial. One extremely positive aspect of the proposed Complainants may be discouraged from coming legi~lation is its treatment of awarding costs against forward for fear of public identification and having police informants. Police have expressed some their most personal and intimate details dragged concern that police or individual police officers through the media and into the public eye. That is a should not be responsible for costs associated with big disincentive. Unfortunately if people are arrests or legal proceedings that they have unwilling to make complaints for fear of what they undertaken in the course of their duties. It is much have to go through in court, sexual offenders will the same as anybody performing some not be prosecuted and may continue to offend. In responsibility on behalf of an organisation, company the end justice will not be done. or government department. If costs are incurred by that person associated with the discharge of his or The opposition believes the provisions to close court her duty, they should be borne by the organisation hearings in sexual offence cases and to suppress or authority on behalf of which he or she has carried information about such cases are a positive move out those duties and not by the individual involved. and that the legislation is progreSSive and positive, despite strong misgivings about the provisions This legislation provides that if costs are awarded relating to asset seizure. against an individual police informant, they are actually awarded against the chief commissioner, in Dr DEAN (Berwick) - It is clear from earlier other words, the police force rather than individual contributions that the bill covers a number of police informants must pick up the costs. That is an ma tters tha t are long overd ue in the reform of the extremely positive move. Magistrates Court. The Magistrates Court, what takes place there and the way we define its Another positive move I wholeheartedly endorse­ procedures in the implementation of our laws are I think anybody concerned with the rights of victims extraordinarily important. The court is the crucible of crime would do so - is the closure of of law enforcement, as any young lawyer finds out proceedings in the Magistrates Court when hearing when he starts his legal life in the Magistrates Court. sexual offences as they are defined in the Crimes Nearly 70 per cent of the matters brought to court Act. This provision also extends to suppression concern the Magistrates Court. The Magistrates orders in relation to the publication of evidence Court is not only the starting point of a young which may cause anxiety, stress or embarrassment lawyer's career; often it is the start for a young to complainants. criminal. It is his first taste of how the state enforces its laws so it is extremely important for that first The honourable member for Gippsland South associa tion wi th the court to set tha t young person, pointed out that in many cases these people have who may be testing the system, on the right path. gone through enough trauma without being made to relive something that could be equally or even more I wish to mention several matters, the first of which traumatic - that is, to appear before the public relates to criminal law procedure. It has been clear venue of a court to relive incidents and to have their for some time that there is a disparity between the most personal affairs and entire backgrounds procedures relating to criminal and civil matters. brought out. It is traumatic enough without having Anybody who examines a copy of Nash's it dragged out before a public gallery or, even worse, Magistrates Court Procedure will see that most of it dragged out in the media.