1. Purposes

1. Purposes

The purposes of this Act are-

(a) to clarify, simplify and consolidate the laws relating to criminal procedure in the Magistrates' Court, the County Court and the Supreme Court;

(b) to introduce a new procedure permitting the service of a notice to appear in the Magistrates' Court;

(c) to provide new pre-trial disclosure requirements for the prosecution;

(d) to provide for a 6-month time limit for the filing of charges for summary offences in the Children's Court;

(e) to provide for the transfer to the County Court or Supreme Court of summary offences related to an offence to be tried on indictment by the relevant court;

(f) to abolish the procedure of indictment by grand jury;

(g) to provide for interlocutory appeals in criminal proceedings in the County Court and the Supreme Court;

(h) to clarify the tests relating to determination of appeals by the Court of Appeal;

(i) to provide for the stay of sentences on appeal;

(j) to amend the Sentencing Act 1991 to provide for a maximum fine that may be imposed for an indictable offence that is heard and determined summarily;

(k) to amend the Crimes Act 1958, the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, the Magistrates' Court Act 1989, the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 and the Appeal Costs Act 1998;

(l) to repeal the Crimes (Criminal Trials) Act 1999;

(m) to make consequential and other amendments.

In the second-reading speech in the Legislative Council, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change outlined the purposes of the Bill:

• Criminal procedure laws should be as clear, simple and accessible as possible
• There should be one integrated set of criminal procedure laws
• Criminal procedure laws need to be fair and effective. In 2006, this government introduced the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities
• To ensure that criminal procedure laws give effect to, and promote these rights and responsibilities, the bill changes a number of existing laws particularly as they affect victims and the accused. Further, our criminal procedure laws aim to create an environment in which the criminal justice system does not convict the innocent nor acquit the guilty
• Criminal procedure laws must support and promote an efficient criminal justice system. Our courts deal with many cases each year. Case management practices need to create a structure that provides sufficient certainty and consistency to create an efficient system while providing sufficient flexibility to adapt to the individual needs of each case
• Court time is valuable and court appearances can be expensive. Case management processes need to make the most of each court hearing
• Early case preparation and discussion between the parties can avoid unnecessary court appearances and ensure that hearings focus on the most important issues
• Apart from being a large system in which offences are prosecuted, criminal procedure laws provide the framework within which important matters are dealt with that can have significant impact on the lives of many people. Going to court can be a major event in a person's life. It is therefore important that criminal procedure laws recognise this impact. This bill minimises the impact of necessary procedures on victims, witnesses, jurors and the accused

The Explanatory Memorandum merely re-states section 1.

The High Court has noted the increase concern to efficienty maximise the use of scarce curial resources.

The contemporary approach to court administration has introduced another element into the equation or, more accurately, has put another consideration in the scales. The view that the conduct of litigation is not merely a matter for the parties but is also one for the court and the need to avoid disruptions in the court’s lists with consequent inconvenience to the court and prejudice to the interests of other litigants waiting to be heard are pressing concerns to which a court may have regard: Sali v SPC Ltd (1993) 67 ALJR 841; 116 ALR 625 at [23] per Toohey and Gaudron JJ.

But despite the emphasis on increased efficiency and case-management, it must not be allowed to eclipse the principles of natural justice.

The Crown is as much entitled to natural justice as any other litigant: R v Lewis (1988) 165 CLR 12 at [9].

Case management is not an end in itself. It is an important and useful aid for ensuring the prompt and efficient disposal of litigation. But it ought always to be borne in mind, even in changing times, that the ultimate aim of a court is attainment of justice and no principle of case management can be allowed to supplant that aim: Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 at 154 per Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ.

The court exercising the discretion must engage in a process of balancing the right of an accused person to a fair trail with the legitimate public interest in the disposition of criminal charges, and in the conviction of those who are guilty and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice: Champion v Richardson (2003) 40 MVR 529 at 539, [39], citing Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378.

Although our system of litigation adopts the adversary method in both the criminal and civil jurisdictions, interests other than those of the litigants are involved in litigation, especially criminal litigation. The community has an immediate interest in the administration of criminal justice to guarantee peace and order in society. The victims of crime, who are not ordinarily parties to prosecution on indictment and whose interests have generally gone unacknowledged until recent times, must be able to see that justice is done if they are not to be driven to self-help to rectify their grievances: Jago v District Court of NSW (168 CLR 23 at 49 – 50, [28] per Brennan J.