6. SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Has he received any recent expert legal opinion on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill; if so, who was the author?
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Yes; I have seen a copy of a legal opinion prepared by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, President of the Law Commission, in response to the opinion of Peter McKenzie QC.
What does Sir Geoffrey Palmer say about Gordon Copeland’s assertion that the amended bill would expose parents to the risk of prosecution if they placed their child on a naughty mat?
In the opinion I have seen, Sir Geoffrey Palmer disagrees with Gordon Copeland’s assertion, and states: “We disagree with the assertion that the effect of our draft will be to prohibit time out by exposing parents who use it to the risk of prosecution.”
Lynne PillayDoes Sir Geoffrey conclude it is unlikely that parents would face prosecution and conviction if they placed their child on a naughty mat for time out, and why does Sir Geoffrey think it highly unlikely that parents would ever be prosecuted for doing so?
Sir Geoffrey has noted that the Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines require prosecutors to exercise their discretion and to assess the likelihood of achieving a conviction. He advises that even if there were a prosecution, it is questionable whether in such cases—for example, time-out cases—a jury could ever properly convict beyond reasonable doubt. That may tell against the likelihood of prosecution.
Gordon CopelandHas the Minister seen the report from the Law Commission of November 2006, signed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and the report signed by Peter McKenzie QC of March 2007, each of which states that parents cannot rely on a defence of corrective purpose when they take a child for time out, and therefore that action will constitute an assault under the Crimes Act?
I have seen the reports the member refers to. The pertinent point is that the police will continue to investigate cases where suspected child abuse takes place. They do so now, and they will do so in the future. Basically, that is not changing.
Does the Law Commission conclude that it would be a good idea to further amend the bill in order to achieve a more robust exception for the time-out situation, and does it express any reservations about pursuing such an amendment?
Yes, it expresses reservations about pursuing such a course. Although the Law Commission understands there may be a good intention, it points out very clearly that further amendments would, in all likelihood, have a perverse effect of exposing children to a greater degree of risk.
I seek the leave of the House to table the Law Commission report of 8 November 2006, which states in clause 12 that parents cannot rely upon a corrective purpose for their actions in reference to time out.
I seek the leave of the House to table the report from Peter McKenzie QC dated 2 March 2007, which similarly concludes that a parent would be potentially subject to action under the Crimes Act for assaults in respect of time out.
I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from Sir Geoffrey Palmer, President of the Law Commission, dated 8 March 2007, which gives further opinion on this matter.