Download Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time

Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
These amendments have to create certainty and to validate decisions made by the Youth Justice Court since its inception in
2006. Recently, the jurisdiction of that court has been cast into doubt following the decision of the Full Court of the
Supreme Court in Howie v Youth Justice Court and others.
Many honourable members would be aware of the principles of youth justice, this House having held numerous debates
with respect to youth crime, antisocial behaviour, families taking responsibility for their children and, indeed, the transition
from the Juvenile Justice Act to the Youth Justice Act 2005-06. The Youth Justice Act is the primary legislation which give
direction for dealing with persons under the age of 18 years who make contact with the criminal justice system.
The Northern Territory Youth Justice Act complies with a number of general and national principles which set out
procedures for dealing with youths who make contact with the criminal justice system. It is set out in the beginning of the
act in sections 3 and 4, which annunciate the objects and principles for the administration of youth justice in the Northern
Territory.
Two critical principles relate directly to the amendments I have introduced here today. The first relevant principle is that
youths who have been charged with criminal offences should not be treated like other offenders. As far as possible, they
should be kept separate from the other criminal justice system.
The second relevant principle is they should be dealt with by police, the courts and Correctional Service providers in a
manner which is appropriate for their age and level of maturity. Under the Juvenile Justice Act and the Youth Justice Act,
this principle we have addressed with the establishment of a dedicated Youth Justice Court.
Young people charged with an offence are kept separate from adult offenders through the provision of a dedicated court
familiar with the issues affecting young offenders, equipped to deal with their offending behaviour as well as offering
rehabilitation programs specifically designed for young people.
In addition to the establishment of a dedicated youth justice court, both acts establish a specific jurisdiction and set of
procedures for the disposition of matters involving young people in the criminal justice system.
In accordance with the principle that youths should be kept separate from the other criminal justice system and be dealt
with in a way that is appropriate for their age and maturity, it was intended that young offenders would, in most cases, only
appear before a youth justice court. They would not appear before the Supreme Court unless they or their guardian gave
consent to the matter being referred to the Supreme Court, or in circumstances where the young person was charged with a
serious offence which, if committed by an adult, carry the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
In 2006, the Youth Justice Court commenced operation under the Youth Justice Act. Since that time, the Youth Justice
Court has exercised its jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters in a summary fashion, except those where the
maximum penalty for an adult offender is life imprisonment. In June of this year, the Supreme Court was required to
examine the Youth Justice Act in more detail. Following the Supreme Court decision in May 2010 in the matter of Curtis v
Eaton, the full court was convened to determine the extent of the jurisdiction of the Youth Justice Court.
When adult offenders are charged with criminal offences, the seriousness of the charge, which is determined by reference
to the penalty, determines how the matter can be disposed of and in which court. The Court of Summary Jurisdiction has
exclusive jurisdiction for minor criminal matters, those which do not carry a penalty of imprisonment, or for which the
maximum penalty is not greater than three years imprisonment.
The Court of Summary Jurisdiction may also, by authorisation under the Justices Act, hear and determine a number of
indictable, that is, more serious matters. Generally speaking, these are for offences for which the maximum penalty is no
more than 10 years imprisonment, 14 years for some property offences. For indictable matters where the maximum penalty
is greater than 10 years imprisonment, or 14 years for some property offences, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction does not
have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters. Instead, such matters must be dealt with by a justice under the Justices
Act by way of preliminary examination of the evidence, also known as a committal hearing. The jurisdiction to actually
hear and determine these more serious indictable matters lies with the Supreme Court before a judge and jury.
Given the (inaudible) principles that youth are to be kept separate from adult courts and other procedures, it was generally
understood that the Youth Justice Court had a much broader power to hear and determine matters than the Court of
Summary Jurisdiction. Unlike adult offenders, it was generally understood that the requisites required for a summary
disposal of A criminal matter would always be met for a youth, except in circumstances where the maximum penalty
available for an adult offender was life imprisonment.
However, following this examination of the wording of the Youth Justice Act, the full court of the Supreme Court found the
Youth Justice Court did not have the same jurisdiction as its predecessor, the Juvenile Justice Court. The effect of this June
2010 full court of the Supreme Court decision is that there would be no difference between the way that young people and
adults would be treated in the criminal justice system, contrary to the principles I outlined earlier. Further, the decision
established that, since 2006 when the Youth Justice Act commenced, the Youth Justice Court has proceeded to hear and
determine matters in a summary fashion when it had no power to do so under the Youth Justice Act.
The purpose of this bill therefore is twofold. First, to correct and clarify the extent of the jurisdiction of the Youth Justice
Court in the Northern Territory. It has always been the intention of this House to comply with Australia’s international
commitments to all areas of child welfare, including criminal justice systems, for children. All other jurisdictions in
Australia have a dedicated youth justice jurisdiction which comprises a court system, separate police procedures, and
detention facilities. Except for the most serious offences, children are entitled to have their matters determined in an
exclusive youth jurisdiction. That was the intention of this parliament when the Youth Justice Act was initially passed, and
it is something I wish to make perfectly plain through these amendments introduced here today.
The second purpose of the bill serves to clarify and validate all decisions made by the Youth Justice Court since its
inception in 2006. This will establish that the convictions and sentences imposed, or other matters determined by the Youth
Justice Court, are valid. Youth who have appeared before that court will not be required to appear in court again for the
same offence, which may have an unintended effect of disrupting treatment or rehabilitation programs, or the young
person’s family and community-based supervision. The validation of those decisions has the added benefit of limiting the
resources and cost implications of the court, and prosecuting illegal aid agencies that are spared from having to reopen any
matter held by the court since December 2006.
The bill seeks to restore certainty in the operation and jurisdiction of the Youth Justice Court and past decisions made by
that court.
I extend thanks to the lawyers of the Department of Justice and officers of Parliamentary Counsel for the formulation and
drafting of this bill in an extraordinarily short time frame.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.