Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to clarify the original intent of this parliament in passing the Sentencing (Crime of Murder) and Parole Reform Act 2003. That act introduced a system of parole for Northern Territory prisoners serving a life sentence for the crime of murder. Prior to the introduction of that act, prisoners serving a life sentence were not eligible to apply for parole. The only way that these prisoners could negotiate a release from prison was by formally approaching His Honour the Administrator for a grant of executive clemency. This government, through the introduction of the 2003 act, introduced a system whereby prisoners serving life sentences for the crime of murder could become eligible for parole after serving a minimum non-parole period of at least 20 years. I must acknowledge that it was the previous government, the CLP government, which initially examined the prospect of creating parole periods for prisoners serving life sentences. Of course, they did not follow through and it was up to this government to deliver these reforms. The 2003 act gave offenders the opportunity to obtain parole as long as they had satisfied the criteria by serving a minimum period of imprisonment and met pre-parole requirements. It was always intended by this parliament that prisoners who had committed the crime of murder would have to serve a non-parole period of at least 20 years imprisonment. However, in the 2003 act, this government also included provision which stated that prisoners who had committed certain acts of aggravation during the commission of a murder would have to serve a minimum period of 25 years imprisonment before they could be eligible for parole. In the second reading speech, the then Attorney-General stated and I quote: ‘Together, with a minimum standard non-parole period of 20 years, the bill establishes for the first time a high minimum non-parole period of 25 years. This non-parole period specifically recognises and identifies cases which involve particular circumstances of aggravation that increase the relative seriousness of the offence. The minimum non-parole period of 25 years will automatically apply to cases involving the murder of more than one person, murders which involve sexual assault, murders of children, murders of public officials who are acting in the course of their duties, such as police, teachers and nurses; and cases where the accused has previously been convicted of murder or manslaughter.’ It has become necessary for this government to clarify precisely what was intended by the provisions of the act. A recent decision by the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal calls into question whether the act, as currently drafted, does do as it was originally intended. These proposed amendments clarify that if the facts of a particular case include the presence of aggravating circumstances which have not changed since the introduction of the act in 2003, the Director of Public Prosecutions must make an application to the court to have the standard 20 year non-parole term extended. Once the court is satisfied these circumstances are indeed present, the courts must impose at least a 25 year minimum term. Both the DPP and the court are obliged to act if the circumstances of aggravation outlined in section 19(3) of the act are found to be present. The existing entitlements for the court to award more than a 25 year minimum term or decline to fix a parole period remain. This act specifically deals with the sentencing regime for the most serious category of offenders. The community expects they be punished for their crimes. This is why government is removing any possible discretion from the DPP in bringing the application or the court in deciding the application as to minimum terms. A lengthy sentence of imprisonment must be imposed and the community expects this class of prisoner to serve that sentence. I turn now to the retrospective component contained in the bill. As a result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, one transitional life prisoner who committed the offence of murder with an aggravating circumstance has received a minimum non-parole period of 20 years imprisonment. All other transitional life prisoners who have been found to have committed murders with circumstances of aggravation have all received sentences of at least 25 years imprisonment or higher. One has been declined a parole period. Until this most recent case, the court has always interpreted the act as precluding it from having any discretion to impose less than the 25 year minimum term for murders where aggravating circumstances were present. If government does not act, those prisoners who have been given a 25 year minimum term may justifiably feel a sense of grievance that they were not given the same consideration as in the recent case of Jonathon Bakewell. However, those other prisoners were dealt with in the manner which was always intended by parliament and Mr Bakewell was not. This is why government must act swiftly. Mr Bakewell has not been considered for parole yet, but this bill provides specific powers for a further application to be made for the DPP or myself to apply a longer parole period. The prompt response of government means that Mr Bakewell will not get his hopes up at the possibility of release or even to be temporarily released only to return to prison upon this legislation’s commencement. To this end, I have written to the South Australian Corrective Services minister, the Honourable Carmen Zolo, informing her of the Northern Territory’s actions and requesting that this be conveyed to the South Australian Parole Board for its information. The presence of circumstances of aggravation in the murder committed by Mr Bakewell means that it was always this parliament’s intention that he should serve a non-parole period of 25 years, just like all the other transitional life prisoners who have been bought before the court so far. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement. Debate adjourned. |