EVIDENCE BILL 2024 —
LONGMAN WARNING PROHIBITION
908. Hon TJORN SIBMA to the parliamentary secretary
representing the Attorney General:
I have won the jackpot! I refer to
the introduction of the Evidence Bill 2024.
(1) On whose
advice has the Attorney General relied in making provision to prohibit judges
from providing juries with a Longman warning
in criminal trials, rather than possibly modifying or limiting the
circumstances in which the warning can be given?
(2) How does
the Attorney General anticipate that the prohibition of the Longman warning
could disadvantage a defendant's equivalent right to a fair
trial?
Hon
JACKIE JARVIS replied:
I thank the member for some notice
of the question. I answer the question on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Attorney General The following response has been provided by the
Attorney General.
(1) The Attorney General
relied on advice from the Department of Justice that was informed by the recommendations of the Royal Commission into
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, particularly
recommendation 65(a); views expressed by the Western Australian Court of Appeal
in cases such as Anderson v Western Australia [2014] 46 WAR 363; and
legislative reforms in other Australian states—for example, South
Australian Evidence Act 1929, section 34CB; New South Wales Criminal Procedure
Act 1986, section 294; and Victorian Jury Directions Act 2015, section 40.
(2) While the
current form of the Longman warning has been abolished in the bill, clause 309
of the bill retains provisions to protect defendants who have experienced
forensic disadvantage.