- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 2 March 2005
Court Security Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 5 of 58
| Next Item »
Page: 14455
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 23 February.
Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [10.21 a.m.]: I support the Court Security Bill. The essence of this legislation is to provide a proper statutory basis for what presently is largely based upon the inherent jurisdiction of the court to control order in and around its precincts. As a matter of principle and legal philosophy, the codification of what are coercive powers should be seen as progressive reform. The specification of statutory powers also provides greater certainty for all involved and makes misuse of powers less likely. The accountability in the use of such powers is increased. The provisions in this legislation include the following. Court security officers can require offensive implements or restricted items to be deposited with the court or confiscated. Court security officers can issue a direction similar to that contained in the Summary Offences Act, which is aimed at reducing instances of intimidation within the court precincts.
Court security officers can require people entering court premises to be scanned by a metal detection device. Once a reasonable belief is formed that someone possesses a restricted item, the officer may conduct a personal search. Entry may be refused or a person removed if a person does not comply with search requirements. If a court security officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person is carrying a restricted item or offensive implement, or has committed an offence on court premises, he or she may require a person to provide identification details and the reason for their visit. A court security officer may arrest a person in the act of committing an offence under the legislation. Equally, the officer may arrest a person when he or she believes on reasonable grounds that a person has committed an offence.
The bill also makes it an offence to use a recording device to record sound or images, or both, in court premises. This extends to mobile phones as well as cameras and audio recording devices. There are obvious exceptions, such as lawyers using dictaphones or a mobile phone only as a telephone. A judicial officer may order a person to leave court premises or deny entry of persons to court premises if it is necessary to secure order and safety in court premises. Interestingly, the bill also allows court security officers to engage in hot pursuit to pursue a person leaving court premises in an attempt to avoid arrest. I would have thought that goes somewhat beyond current law and practice.
I note the undertakings in the second reading speech concerning the additional training that court security officers will undergo. That seems entirely appropriate, granted that the powers have been codified and in some senses extended. Important issues of principle are involved in this bill. It is important that courts be accessible to the public. The movement away from the star chamber of the Tudors is rightly regarded as one of the more progressive developments in English common law tradition. It is generally regarded that part of that progressive development in the common law has been opening courts to the public, and that is an important principle. Certainly, examples in various parts of what was once the British Empire, where people were prevented from getting into courts, do not fill one with any sense of optimism about the likelihood of that being a useful development.
It would certainly be wholly regrettable if, in attempting to defend the society in which we live, we managed to damage some of the things that we celebrate as worth defending. So it is important that those principles are retained; in that sense it is worth observing that clause 6 of the bill provides the important statement of principle that a person is generally entitled to enter and remain on court premises. So that principle remains in the legislation. Likewise, some other provisions in the legislation can be seen as proper restraints upon the powers that are otherwise given. Court security officers are obliged to hand confiscated items to police, and a refusal to return the item can lead to an appeal to the Local Court. Likewise, if a security officer arrests someone that person must be taken to the police or an authorised officer. Part 5 of the bill expresses the concerns, limitations and safeguards of the exercise of powers by court security officers. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda) [10.25 a.m.]: I am pleased to speak on the Court Security Bill, which provides for the appointment of security officers for court premises and confers certain functions upon them. It also confirms that members of the public have a right, subject to certain qualifications, to enter and remain in areas of court premises that are open to the public. Presently, the Sheriff's Office relies on the inherent jurisdiction of the court and limited legislative powers in exercising its court security function. By contrast, this bill provides a sound statutory basis for the exercise of court security powers in New South Wales courts. I am pleased to learn that there has been extensive consultation with members of the judiciary and the legal profession in the formulation of this bill.
The bill is an important plank in the Government's plan to ensure that all those who have business with the courts can conduct their matters in a safe and secure environment. The Carr Government is committed to putting more resources into court security and identifying and commissioning the most up-to-date security available. In addition to this legislation, the Government has demonstrated its commitment to enhanced court security through a number of strategies, which are based on the outcome of comprehensive security risk reviews. I shall mention three of them. So far, 16 courts have been equipped with airport-style baggage and personal screening facilities, with 13 of these fully operational. These courts include the Downing Centre, Central Local Court, Parramatta, Penrith, Lismore, Burwood, Liverpool, Sutherland, Campbelltown, Newcastle Supreme Court, Wollongong, Bidura Children's Court and Cobham Children's Court.
A total of 18 courts will be fitted with airport-style security by June this year. Another nine courts will have these security measures installed in the 2005-06 financial year. Additionally, digital surveillance, access control and intruder alarm system upgrades are scheduled for completion at 25 courts this financial year. It is proposed that similar security enhancements be completed at a further 20 courts by the end of 2005-06. The systems are designed to assist court officers in detecting and responding to security incidents in a timely manner. Four high-security bullet-resistant docks have been installed at Central Local Court. Other courthouses upgraded with high-security docks are Sutherland, Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith, Burwood and Campbelltown.
As a former legal aid solicitor at Sutherland Local Court, I well remember representing a young man in a complex bail application before the local senior magistrate. While the magistrate was considering the papers I had laid before him, and I had my head in the law books, the young man jumped the dock. I could not believe how quickly he jumped over the dock and attempted to escape from the court. He got only as far as the court doors and was met by a young Corrective Services officer, who was about five feet high, and another larger gentleman. That brought home to me—and it was the only time in my legal practice that it happened—how court security could be undermined if someone was determined to get out the court door.
I welcome these changes and upgrades. Recently I went to Sutherland Local Court to assist Mrs Kim Hall to become a justice of the peace and to support her application. I noted that the dock out of which that young man jumped now had bullet-resistant security screens. The upgrade program will significantly reduce the potential risk of harm to members of the judiciary, court staff, members of the public and other people who use court complexes, and that includes members of the legal profession. This bill is complemented by the Sheriff Bill. The Government appointed additional Sheriff's officers and provided additional funding for video conferencing facilities.
In February 2003 the Government announced a four-year $7.1 million plan to further upgrade security at the State's courts, including the employment of 41 new Sheriff's officers. By the end of the four-year upgrade program in December 2006 every sitting Local Court in New South Wales will have a Sheriff's officer present. Court users are supportive of the steps that have already been taken and those that are foreshadowed in this bill. While some necessary and minor inconvenience will be associated with the roll-out of enhanced security technology, the bill will not make that worse; rather it will clarify what measures are in place and what powers are available to court security officers. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [10.31 a.m.]: The Opposition is happy to support the Court Security Bill, which provides a number of measures for improving security at courts. The bill will give court security officers a number of new powers, confirming the right of the public and the media to have access to the courts. The bill will also give them extra powers to deal with the possession of restricted items, to allow search and seizure and, where necessary, to allow arrest without warrant. Regrettably, these procedures and powers are necessary. In recent times there have been examples of people being severely attacked within the precincts of a court. In one case one litigant murdered another litigant in the Family Court.
The worst possible crimes can be committed in the precincts of a court. In a sense courts are high-risk places because their business is to deal with conflicts between people that cannot be solved by other means, whether they be civil conflicts—and some of those can get pretty nasty at times—family-related conflicts, or conflicts involving serious breaches of the criminal law. Whichever way we look at it, it is the business of the courts to deal with these matters. Regrettably, some extremely troubled and dangerous people come before most courts every day of the week and, by definition, there are security risks. I listened carefully to the list of courts that was read out earlier relating to the cascading installation of new security measures. I hope that priority has been given to those courts that have significant domestic violence lists.
Police officers tell me it is a matter of concern that in the area of family and domestic relations some of the most dangerous and unpredicted offences can occur. I hope and trust that the Government, in considering the court priority list, will determine the priorities. Concern has been expressed by some members of the bar relating to closing off the corridor between Wentworth Chambers and the main vestibule to the Supreme Court. Those who hold those concerns have to submit themselves to the higher concerns of the public interest. If it is the considered view of court staff that that type of access presents a problem, that access has to be blocked off or regulated in some way.
I know that might be unsatisfactory to some barristers but the wider duty of care is pretty plain and the personal convenience of individuals has to take second place. It might be regrettable but that is the age in which we live. I talked to Mr Selth, chief executive of the Bar Association, and he is strongly committed to the bill. He understands some of the concerns held by members of the association and by the Law Society but so far as he is concerned the security issues are not negotiable. That is the only sensible approach.
Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [10.35 a.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their support for the bill. It is important that court security officers have the clear power to ensure the safe keeping of the courts and those who use them. The Government believes that the Court Security Bill provides a balanced approach in that respect. There will now be a statutory basis for the exercise of powers by security officers as well as a clear statement of the safeguards that apply during the exercise of these powers. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:05 : Update this page