Question without notice

March 22, 2022

Tania MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (11:59):

My question is to the Attorney-General. On 16 September 2020 the Victorian Law Reform Commission tabled its review of pre-trial procedures to make the system less traumatic for victims and improve efficiency in the justice system.

A key recommendation from the VLRC—number 3—which has been supported by the Director of Public Prosecutions is to abolish the test for committal. The commission said the test is unnecessary because the accused is discharged in only one or two per cent of cases. The DPP says it will reduce the time a matter takes to get to trial and will mean most victims will not have to endure being cross-examined twice. Attorney, what is the government’s position in response to this recommendation, and do you intend to abolish the test for committal?

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:00):

I thank Ms Maxwell for her question—again an extremely complex area of the law, of the justice system, and a lot of vexed views in this space.

The committal process serves several purposes in criminal trial processes. It gives the defence an opportunity to test the prosecution before a trial commences, it can facilitate early disclosure of prosecution evidence and it also enables a narrowing of the issues, which ensures that efficiencies can be delivered through to the courts and of course to the parties involved.

There have been calls for changes in this space including, as Ms Maxwell has identified, from the DPP, and the law reform commission considered it in 2020, but it is fair to say it is far from settled. The VLRC did not recommend abolishing pre-trial cross-examinations, and it noted that it was one of the most polarising issues that was raised during consultation.

The strength of views on this issue definitely indicates that it is not a straightforward issue. It is certainly something that is difficult for me to acquit in the short time during question time, and I am more than happy to have further conversations with the member as appropriate, but I did want to bring to her attention some of the reforms that we have done in the committal hearing space: prohibiting cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses, including children and cognitively impaired persons, in sex offence cases; and allowing vulnerable witnesses to give evidence in a different way—using remote facilities, via prerecorded AV or with a support person. And reforms to allow for prerecorded evidence can also operate to reduce trauma by reducing or removing the need to give evidence twice, which, as the member indicated, has that retraumatising factor.

So I am conscious of the flaws and I am conscious of the views against. I think some of those reforms would indicate to the member that the government is certainly conscious that there could be improvements, and we want to achieve those. I have not ruled out changes. It will also be something that the department is advising me on in relation to our response to the VLRC report on sexual offending, because it is very relevant in those cases. So I cannot give Ms Maxwell a commitment to implement a recommendation from 12 years ago, but I can give her an indication that work on this issue is far from over. It is ongoing and it is evolving, and I can have a more thorough discussion with her, perhaps offline, if she would like.

Ms MAXWELL (12:02):

Thank you, Attorney. I am grateful for some of the reforms that the government is actually making to further support victims.

The DPP has also recommended a model that includes an issues hearing to ensure the proper disclosure of the prosecution case and resolution discussions instead of the existing committal test. This is supported by the victims of crime commissioner, who said it would strike an appropriate balance. Can the Attorney advise the government’s position on this recommended model?

Ms SYMES (12:03):

Ms Maxwell, again there are various views on the different tests and procedures and processes that should apply.

I think what is particularly useful for me is to view these suggestions and these recommendations from people that work on the ground every day through the prism of responding to the VLRC report, because it is about the most poignant cases that can benefit from changes. So again, pretty much the same answer that I gave to the member’s substantive question.