COURT SECURITY BILL 1998 Second Reading Speech

Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

COURT SECURITY BILL 1998

(This an uncorrected proof of the daily report. It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such.)

(This is an uncorrected proof of the daily report. It is made available on the consdition it is recognised as such.)

Bill presented and read a first time.

Mr REED (Deputy Chief Speaker): Madam Speaker, at the request of and on behalf of the AttorneyGeneral, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Some time ago, the Office of Courts Administration sought advice from my department on what powers the police, security guards and court officials had to search persons and/or property of persons in or entering courthouses and what powers existed which would allow for special security measures to be implemented at courthouses to ensure the protection of parties, witnesses, court staff and members of the public. The answers to the various questions were, in summary, that there was no specific legislation in the Northern Territory dealing with the matters, that the wide inherent powers of the judges to control proceedings in the Supreme Court were inadequate to allow the judges to authorise a search of a person or the person's property, that the power of the police to search a person without warrant was restricted to the situation where the person was in lawful custody on a charge of an offence, and that the powers of the staff of the private security firms providing services at the supreme Court were restricted to taking, receiving and detaining persons committed to the custody of the court or the Sheriff.

As part of its advice, my department recommended that these matters should be clarified by the introduction of specific legislation. This recommendation was accepted by both the Chief Justice and the Chief Magistrate, who each expressed the view that such legislation was highly desirable. This bill has been developed in response to those requests.

Legislation, specifically providing powers to assist in maintaining security on court premises and protecting the safety of users and occupiers of court premises, was enacted in Victoria in 1980, in Queensland in 1983, and in Tasmania and by the Commonwealth in 1995. There is a good deal of common ground among the state and Commonwealth legislation and, as one might expect, the later legislation contains refinements and innovations. The bill draws on all models. The bill will apply to all existing Northern Territory court and its operation may be extended by regulations to other court or to a tribunal, body or person that is by law entitled to hear, receive and examine evidence.

The bill achieves its purpose in a number of ways: Firstly, by providing for the appointment of security officers in respect of courts; secondly, by specifying the functions, powers and duties of security officers; thirdly, by regulating the conduct of persons on court premises; and, fourthly, by creating offences in respect of conduct on court premises.

The bill empowers a security officer, which term is defined to mean a member of the Police Force, a Sheriff's officer and a person appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Courts Administration, to exercise a range of security measures on court premises. The chief executive officer of the Office of Courts Administration will be able to appoint as security officers only public sector employees or persons holding a crowd controller's licence under the Private Security Act. A person may be appointed to be a security officer in relation to all courts or a particular court. As honourable members may be aware, private security firms have for some years now been providing limited security services in the Supreme Court in Darwin and in Alice springs, but only in respect of persons in the custody of the court or the Sheriff. The bill will allow suitably qualified employees of the contracted security firms to be appointed as security officers and to carry out a wider range of duties on court premises.

Security officers will be empowered to require a person who is on or entering court premises to:

ų provide his or her name and address, and reasons for
being on the premises, and evidence of his or her
identity [clause 7(1)];

ų submit himself or herself and any objects in his or her
possession to a screening search [clause 8(1)]; and

ų when it is necessary to do so in the interests of
security, submit to a frisk each and permit a search of
any object in the possession of the person [clause 8(2)].

A 'screening search' is defined to mean, in effect, a search of a person or an object by electronic scanning. Therefore, should the need arise, the bill permits screening similar to that a person undergoes when entering a departure terminal at any major airport. A 'frisk search' is defined to mean a search of the person conducted by running the hands over the person's outer clothing. Before conducting the frisk search, a security officer may require the person to be searched to remove any jacket or coat.

Certain safeguards have been built into the exercise of the frisk search. I refer members to sub-clauses 8(2) and 8(3). Firstly, the security officer must believe, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary to carry out the frisk search in the interests of security. Secondly, the frisk search must be conducted by a security officer of the same sex as the person to be searched or, where a security officer of the same sex as the person to be searched is not available, by a person of the same sex who agrees to conduct the search.

Persons on or entering court premises may be required to deposit with a security officer a placard, poster or another object which is offensive, insulting, threatening, indecent or is likely to engender violence, create a breach of the peace or unreasonably cause substantial annoyance to another person on court premises. I refer honourable members to clause 11(1).

Clause 12(1) provides that persons on or entering court premises may also be required to deposit with a security officer an object that is reasonably capable of concealing a firearm, explosives or an offensive weapon. This power may be utilised, for example, where the goods in question cannot be adequately searched or where the security requirements of the particular court do not warrant the installation and use of electronic screening mechanisms. Security officers will be empowered to order a person to leave court premises where:

ų the person fails to provide his or her name and address,
the reason for entering or being on court premises or any
proof of identity the person is carrying [clauses 7 and
14(1)(b)];

ų the person fails to submit himself or herself and any
goods or in the possession of the person to a screening
search or frisk search [clauses 8 and 14(1)(b)];

ų the person fails to deposit with the security officer, a
relevant placard, poster instrument, device or object
[clauses 11 and 14(1)(b)]; or

ų the person fails to deposit with the security officer an
object that is reasonably capable of concealing a
firearm, explosives or an offensive weapon [clauses 12
and 14(1)(b)]; and

ų the security officer believes that the person is behaving
unlawfully or in a disorderly or menacing manner [clause
13(1)].

Where a person fails to comply with an order of a security officer to leave court premises, clause 14(3) provides that a security officer may remove the person from the premises or a part of court premises using such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose.

The bill creates a number of offences to assist with the enforcement of its provisions. It will be an offence for a person to:

ų fail to provide his or her name and address, his or her
reason for entering or being on court premises or any
proof of identity the person is carrying [clause 7(2)];

ų provide a false name and address, false information for
entering or being on court premises or false proof of
identity [clause 7(3)];

ų contravene or fail to comply with a requirement of a
security officer submit himself or herself and any object
in the possession of the person to a screening search or
frisk search [clause 8(4)];

ų possess a firearm, explosives or an offensive weapon on
court premises [clause 9(1)];

ų fail to deposit with a security officer when required to
do so, a placard, poster instrument, device or object or
to leave court premises with the item the subject of the
requirement as soon as practicable after the requirement
is made [clause 11(2)];

ų fail to deposit with a security officer when required to
do so, an object that is reasonable capable of concealing
a firearm, explosives or an offensive weapon or to leave
court premises with the object the subject of the
requirement as soon as practicable after the requirement
is made [clause 12(2)];

ų fail to comply with the requirement of a security officer
to leave court premises in any of the five circumstances
outlined earlier;

ų resist, hinder or obstruct a security officer in the
execution of his or her duty [clause 15]; and

ų contravene or fail to comply with an order of a judge to
leave court premises or a part of court premises [clause
17(2)].

The penalties vary according to the gravity of the offence. The maximum penalty for the least serious offence, that of failing to provide name, address, reason for being on court premises and any proof of identity the person is carrying, is a fine of $2000. The maximum penalty for the most serious offence, that of possessing a firearm, explosives or an offensive weapon on court premises, is a fine of $25 000 or imprisonment for 5 years.

Clause 16 of the bill provides that, where a security officer is of the opinion that a person has committed, is committing or is likely to commit an offence against the bill, the security officer may, without warrant, arrest and take that person into custody. Clause 16 provides safeguards for the person so arrested or detained in that:

ų firstly, the person can only be questioned by a member of
the Police Force in accordance with the Police
Administration Act;

ų secondly, the person must be delivered to a member of the
Police Force as soon as practicable;

ų thirdly, the Police Administration Act applies to the
person arrested and to the receiving member as if the
arrest had been made under that act. Honourable members
will be aware that the Police Administration Act imposes
on police a strict code of conduct in relation to holding
and questioning suspects;

ų lastly, the bill provides that a person is to be released
from custody immediately where it becomes apparent that
the person did not commit the offence for which the
person was arrested.

The bill also empowers a security officer to seize:

ų any firearm, explosive, or offensive weapon possessed by
any person on or entering court premises [clause 10(1)];

ų any placard, poster or object which a person fails to
deposit after being required to do so [clause 11(3)]; and

ų any object reasonable capable of concealing a firearm,
explosives or an offensive weapon which a person fails to
deposit after being required to do so [clause 12(3)].

The bill does not derogate from any powers presently conferred on or possessed by a court or a judge. Not only does the bill preserve all existing powers of courts and tribunals to deal with contempt and to control their own proceedings, but it also gives these entities specific powers to exclude members of the public from the court premises or a part of court premises where the entity is of the opinion that it is necessary for the purposes of securing order and safety. I refer members to subclauses 3(1) and (2) and 17(1).

Where a person fails to comply with an order of a judge to leave court premises or a part of court premises, clause 17(3) provides that a security officer may remove the person from the premises or the part of court premises or prevent a person from entering those premises using such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose.

It must be emphasised that the bill does not in any way attempt to curtail the right of any member of the public to enter court premises to observe court proceedings. Indeed, clause 3(3) provides that a person has a right to enter and remain in a court, provided that -

ų there is room for the person in the court;

ų the person has a proper reason for being in or about the
court or has indicated that he or she wishes to see the
proceedings of the court; and

ų the person has complied with the requirements, if any, of
a judge or security officer.

Although it will be a matter for the courts to determine the level of security required on a case-by-case basis, it is not anticipated that security officers will utilise all of the powers contained in the bill on a day-to-day basis as a matter of course. However, the power will be there should the need arise.

I commend the bill to honourable members.

Debate adjourned.

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]