- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 2 March 2005
Sheriff Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 6 of 58
| Next Item »
Page: 14458
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 23 February.
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [10.37 a.m.]: The Opposition supports the Sheriff Bill, which in some ways is a companion bill to the Court Security Bill. It focuses on the role of Sheriff's officers, amongst other things, in relation to the security of courts. When I visited Penrith court recently I noticed that the advanced security system that had been put in place was being manned, at least in part, by Sheriff's officers. That was a demonstration to me of the wider role that Sheriff's officers play in the security of Penrith court. Sheriff's officers are involved in other key areas. They are involved in the enforcement of court orders.
All lawyer members of Parliament would know that it is an extremely difficult and thankless job to go knocking on the doors of people and trying to enforce court orders. If people are being followed up in that fashion quite often the chances are that when they open their doors they will not be receptive to a Sheriff's officer with court papers. We must focus in this bill on the offence of hindering and obstructing Sheriff's officers who are trying to do their job by enforcing the orders of the court. They, like police, should benefit from special protection as they carry out their duties. A court can make all the orders it likes but, at the end of the day, if a litigant ignores them it is up to the Sheriff and the police to go to the sharp end of the judicial system to ensure that the wishes of the court are carried out.
It is appropriate that Sheriff's officers, like police, receive extra recognition because of the difficulties they face in their work. Sheriff's officers also have the enormous responsibility of dealing with juries, and we all know how sensitive that job is. Recently there have been a number of examples relating to juries. The provisions in the bill relate to the offence of impersonating a Sheriff, using Sheriff's insignia, and all that sort of thing. Those issues warrant the special treatment that they are getting in this bill.
We understand that sometimes in especially delicate trials there will be an extreme reluctance on the part of a complainant to give evidence a second time. Regrettably, some people will attempt to use all sorts of illegal means to influence a jury. Hopefully, the bill, by dealing with impersonation and insignia, and so on, will at least lessen the risk of impersonation being used as a way of getting to a jury and causing a mistrial and the enormous problems that can flow from that, as we have seen on occasions. The Opposition is happy to support this bill.
Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [10.40 a.m.]: I support the Sheriff Bill, which repeals the previous basis for the office of Sheriff—the Sheriff Act 1900 and the 1823 Charter of Justice—and provides that the Sheriff has the functions created by legislation, either by this bill or other Acts. These functions include security of courts, as set out in the court security legislation that was debated only a moment ago, and various roles in relation to juries, primarily as set out in the Jury Act. The Sheriff also has a role in enforcing court judgments. The Sheriff's role in enforcing civil judgments is probably where members of this place have the greatest exposure to the office of Sheriff.
The legislation contains provisions for the delegation of the Sheriff's functions and for the creation of a Sheriff's alternate. It establishes a number of offences. It is an offence to hinder or obstruct the Sheriff or to impersonate the Sheriff. Wearing or possessing a Sheriff's officer's uniform or using sheriff's insignia without being a Sheriff's officer is an offence. Likewise, it is an offence to use the word "Sheriff" in an operating name unless approved or consented to. Two other provisions in the legislation are of interest. One of these relates to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Schedule 1 to the Ombudsman Act contains a list of exemptions to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In 1997 the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman conducted a review of the exemptions under schedule 1. In that review, against the then position of the Attorney General's Department, the committee argued for a distinction to be made between judicial and administrative functions within courts and courts administration. The committee's view was that judicial functions can certainly continue to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, but that there was no good reason at all for non-judicial functions to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Recommendation 7 of that committee report read in part:
The Committee recommends that clauses 2 and 3 be consolidated into one clause which specifies that it is the exercise of judicial functions and powers, and the conduct of judicial officers, which are excluded from the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
That position was strongly supported by the Ombudsman. The committee returned to the issue in 2000 when it did a follow-up of the review of schedule 1. It confirmed the recommendation, noted that it had not been implemented and that the Ombudsman considered it particularly important. In the light of that, I am delighted to see that the logic of the committee's position is contained in this bill. The bill amends schedule 1 to the Ombudsman Act to make it clear that the Sheriff and Sheriff's officers are not included in schedule 1. That is, they are not excluded from the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The bill also contains provisions that include the Sheriff and any Sheriff's officer within the exclusions of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction where the conduct concerned flows from the direction of a court or of a judicial officer presiding over proceedings before a court. This is a wholly welcome amendment.
Clause 7 of the bill requires that the Sheriff or Sheriff's officer must take an oath or affirmation of office. The form of the oath or affirmation is to be set out in the regulations, which have not yet been proclaimed because the bill has not been passed. I infer from the second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary that it will be largely similar to the oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Head of State—at the moment the Queen. Several points should be made here. One is that it makes sense for an oath or affirmation to be required of the Sheriff and Sheriff's officers. They fulfil—especially after the court security legislation—statutory functions very similar to and in some cases identical with those of police and Corrective Services officers. If police and Corrective Services officers have to take an oath or affirmation of office, so should the Sheriff and Sheriff's officers. The really interesting point concerns the terms in which the oath or affirmation is expressed.
Obviously, I look forward to the day when no-one in this country has to express allegiance to a foreign-born, British, and originally German, monarch. Certainly, the proposed swearing of allegiance to Charles III should give everyone pause—it is hard to know whether to laugh or cry. However, it makes some sense for employees of the Executive arm to swear or affirm allegiance to the titular head of the Executive—whoever or whatever that may be from time to time. Members of this place are in a different category. We are emphatically not employees of the Executive arm—at least not in theory—and therefore we have no such obligation upon us to swear or affirm allegiance to the Head of state—who is presently the Queen and one day will be the President. Our allegiance as members of Parliament should be, rather, to the people who elect us. It is a basic distinction in democratic theory and practice between our position and that of Sheriff's officers and police. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda) [10.45 a.m.]: The Sheriff Bill deals with the appointment and functions of the office of Sheriff, prohibits conduct that may interfere with the exercise of the Sheriff's functions, and provides for certain conduct of the Sheriff, Sheriff's officers and security officers to be the subject of complaint to the Ombudsman. Currently, the appointment and functions of the Sheriff are covered by the Sheriff Act 1900, a number of other Acts, the Charter of Justice and the common law. This bill repeals the 1900 Act and replaces it with provisions that consolidate and update some of the laws governing the office of Sheriff. The bill is complementary to the Court Security Bill, which has just passed through this House.
This bill will bring the legislation that underpins the old and respected office of Sheriff into modern times. The current Sheriff Act is over 100 years old, and the office was first established in Australia by the Charter of Justice more than 75 years before that. As the House well knows, the functions of the Sheriff have changed over time. This bill recognises the broad and important role the Sheriff plays in the State's justice system. No longer is the Sheriff the coroner, the gaoler or the executioner. Nevertheless, the modern day duties of the Sheriff are vital to the justice system in this State. The mission of Sheriff's officers is to protect the justice system. The dedication and commitment of current serving officers is without question and is demonstrated every day in courts and in our community.
I remember how helpful the Sheriff's officers were when I worked for the Director of Public Prosecutions and for the defence, as a legal aid solicitor at Campbelltown Local Court and Sutherland Local Court and later at the bar. I thank the Sheriff's officers for their work in the past and for their current work. I know the enormous contribution they make to the community now and will make in the future. By assembling, assisting and protecting New South Wales citizens selected for jury service, the Sheriff's Office helps to honour one of the most important cornerstones of the State's justice system—the right of an accused to be tried by a jury of his or her peers. Sheriff's officers make known the decisions of the courts and tribunals of New South Wales and the Commonwealth by serving summonses, enforcing orders and executing warrants and writs. Many citizens look to the office of the Sheriff to assist them in enforcing civil judgments. These can be very difficult, involving people who are aggressive and who would, and do, try the patience of the Sheriff's officers to the limit. Many Sheriff's officers must have the patience of Job to complete their duties the way they do. The Sheriff's role in court security directly impacts on the community and gives life to the stated mission of the office—to protect the justice system.
Much of this bill provides the legislative base for the machinery that will establish the office of the Sheriff and the appointment of the various statutory officers. Significantly, the bill sets out a number of mechanisms that will protect the integrity of this important office. It provides for offences for impersonating an officer, hindering or obstructing an officer and wearing or possessing a Sheriff's officer's uniform or using the officer's insignia. These matters have already been mentioned. Of particular note is the enhanced security of the office, which will only serve to promote the standing of officers in the eyes of the community. The bill also gives the Ombudsman jurisdiction, for the first time, to investigate complaints about the conduct of Sheriff's officers. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, and Minister for the Environment) [10.49 a.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable members representing the electorates of Epping, Liverpool and Miranda for their support for the Sheriff Bill. They have described its purpose and structure sufficiently so it remains for me only to acknowledge again the dedication and effectiveness with which the staff of the Sheriff's Office perform their work. As was acknowledged during the debate, there has been significant recruitment of new staff to the office in more recent times as part of the general upgrading of court security and protection arrangements. When I met a group of young recruits fairly recently I was particularly comforted to learn that one, immediately before his recruitment, had played the role of Action Man at Australia's Wonderland. It gave me great confidence that he would be able to deal satisfactorily with those in the precincts of the court when he was on duty. I commend the bill to the House. This bill and that which preceded it represent together a significant reform in existing arrangements for the proper care and good order of our courts.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:31:56 : Update this page