Criminal Legislation Amendment Bill 2007

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.43 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate. I will endeavour to deal with some of the issues that have been raised. I deal firstly with the issue of double jeopardy raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon. The amendments merely clarify that the withdrawal of the matter by the prosecution does not prevent later proceedings in respect of the same matter against the same person. The double jeopardy principle has never been intended to apply to such matters; it being predicated upon there being an acquittal, generally following a hearing on the merits of the case. This proposal arises from a technical difficulty with section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which states:

If a matter is withdrawn by the prosecutor, the matter is taken to be dismissed and the accused person is taken to be discharged in relation to the offences concerned.

Sections 205 and 206 also provide that a defendant may apply for a certificate stating that a matter has been dismissed, and once granted the certificate "prevents any later proceedings in any court for the same matter". The concern arising from these sections is that matters can be withdrawn for technical reasons unrelated to the prosecution forming the view that the prosecution is doomed to fail. This amendment does not affect other safeguards in the law such as applications for stays due to unfairness; statutes of limitations for bringing summary offences, generally six months; and arguments relating to abuse of process, all of which continue to ensure that this particular provision is not unfairly misused.

Turning to the new offences of possession of recipes for drug manufacture and possession of certain drug precursors, defences are available for the proposed possession offences. The Legislation Review Committee asks whether the reversal of the onus of proof unduly trespasses on rights and liberty. The Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act already contains a number of serious possession offences for which it is necessary to prove that the person also had the intent to manufacture illicit substances. These offences provide necessary backup charges where it is not possible to prove this intent in spite of the fact that the person possesses these things in extremely suspicious circumstances. As explained in the Legislation Review Committee report, the offences provide a wide variety of defences to the possession offence. Due to the compartmentalised and decentralised way that clever drug manufacturers operate these days, these types of offences are considered absolutely necessary to continue to eradicate the production of these toxic and harmful illicit substances.

Ms Lee Rhiannon also talked about the issue of accessories. This is a technical amendment. These amendments clarify that in situations where an accessory is liable to the same punishment to which the person would have been liable had the person been the principal offender it is the accessory's criminal record, not the principle offender's, which determines the maximum penalty that may be imposed. I commend the bill to the House.

Question-That this bill be now read a second time-put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.