logo
NSW chief justice releases rare statement of growing number of people on remand

NSW chief justice releases rare statement of growing number of people on remand

The NSW chief justice has sounded the alarm about the soaring number of people in the state being held on remand.
In a rare public statement, Chief Justice Andrew Bell also sought to defend judges' bail decisions amid media scrutiny, saying the court system does its best to balance risk to the community and the interests of those accused.
Chief Justice Bell pointed to the latest Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) figures that show there were 5,732 people on remand awaiting trial.
"This figure has increased from 5,452 as at 30 March 2024 and from 4,778 five years earlier, that is to say, an increase of approximately 20 per cent over five years," he said.
In June last year, the Minns government tightened bail laws for domestic violence offenders after a string of high-profile killings of women by men known to them, meaning those accused of serious domestic violence charges now have to demonstrate why they should be given bail before it is granted.
The government also made it harder for young offenders to get bail.
The chief justice said the presumption of innocence was a "fundamental plank in our system of justice", and the denial of bail left innocent people at risk of being kept behind bars for "a considerable period of time".
"It is not possible to ensure that an accused person held in prison on remand will receive a quick trial, despite the best efforts of all concerned," he wrote.
"A person charged with a serious offence may have to wait up to three years before their trial comes on for hearing."
He said keeping an accused person behind bars was costly for taxpayers, with an annual average cost in 2024 of over $105,000 per person to keep a person in custody, totalling almost $600 million per year spent on prisoners held on remand.
Chief Justice Bell said there was also a hefty human toll.
"It also carries an irremediable cost to the not insignificant number of accused person held on remand but not subsequently convicted, or if sentenced for a shorter period than he or she has been held on remand," he said.
Chief Justice Bell said the Bail Act strives to deal with the "difficult issue" of what to do with those who have been charged but not convicted of an offence.
He said while over time it has "significantly restricted the circumstances in which bail may be granted" it does not "mandate the refusal of bail for any person".
Supreme Court justices dealt with over 3,100 bail applications last year, while magistrates in the local court system determined almost 40,000 bail applications.
The chief justice said while the act allows courts to impose "stringent conditions", he acknowledged there was no "absolute guarantee that the person granted bail will not offend whilst on bail".
"To do so involves a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the difficult and complex risk assessment which judges are required to make when hearing and determining bail applications.
"While judges' decisions are not immune from criticism, media reporting of decisions to grant bail is sometimes not informed by a full understanding or proper appreciation of the evidence before the court on the bail application."
He concludes his piece with predecessor Tom Bathurst KC's 2012 quote: "There are a few people as much in touch with the realities faced by victims, accused and convicted as are the judges of the criminal courts. They are in the thick of it every single day".
"That remains the case today," Chief Justice Bell said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The controlling mind, the ‘cover-up' and the critical flaw: Fresh claims against Richard White
The controlling mind, the ‘cover-up' and the critical flaw: Fresh claims against Richard White

The Age

time10 minutes ago

  • The Age

The controlling mind, the ‘cover-up' and the critical flaw: Fresh claims against Richard White

Controversial WiseTech billionaire Richard White has been accused of turning a blind eye to a 'cover-up' to keep serious technical vulnerabilities from a potential purchaser of his anti-money laundering software business Kyckr. 'Mr White … stood to benefit from the removal of individuals unwilling to downplay material risk,' former chief technology officer Rebecca Glover has alleged in a wrongful dismissal claim. Glover also claims there was an 'organisational purge' against employees deemed disloyal to White. Glover and her colleague, Jason Davey, were fired on June 20, a week after Kyckr's chief executive officer, Kathy Phelan, was sacked. Davey and Glover have launched wrongful dismissal claims with the Fair Work Commission. Phelan is pursuing her own legal claim. 'There was no consultation, no support and no due process,' Davey's court claim said. Glover has alleged in court documents that she identified a 'critical cybersecurity flaw' which represented 'a major breach of technical and regulatory obligations' for the company. She also claims she raised concerns about a possible product liability risk arising from Kyckr's verification of UBOs (ultimate beneficial owner), 'which was returning inaccurate results to regulated clients' in up to 20 per cent of cases. UBO searches are crucial for preventing financial crime such as money laundering and terrorist financing by identifying the key owners of entities, even if they are owned through a complex web of companies. Court documents allege that Kyckr chief operations officer Steve Lamb and White were involved in her wrongful dismissal because she objected to concealing issues from a potential purchaser, Sydney-founded anti-money laundering solutions business Encompass Corporation. In her wrongful dismissal claim, Glover alleges she and Phelan were sacked for refusing 'to participate in this cover-up'.

The controlling mind, the ‘cover-up' and the critical flaw: Fresh claims against Richard White
The controlling mind, the ‘cover-up' and the critical flaw: Fresh claims against Richard White

Sydney Morning Herald

time10 minutes ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

The controlling mind, the ‘cover-up' and the critical flaw: Fresh claims against Richard White

Controversial WiseTech billionaire Richard White has been accused of turning a blind eye to a 'cover-up' to keep serious technical vulnerabilities from a potential purchaser of his anti-money laundering software business Kyckr. 'Mr White … stood to benefit from the removal of individuals unwilling to downplay material risk,' former chief technology officer Rebecca Glover has alleged in a wrongful dismissal claim. Glover also claims there was an 'organisational purge' against employees deemed disloyal to White. Glover and her colleague, Jason Davey, were fired on June 20, a week after Kyckr's chief executive officer, Kathy Phelan, was sacked. Davey and Glover have launched wrongful dismissal claims with the Fair Work Commission. Phelan is pursuing her own legal claim. 'There was no consultation, no support and no due process,' Davey's court claim said. Glover has alleged in court documents that she identified a 'critical cybersecurity flaw' which represented 'a major breach of technical and regulatory obligations' for the company. She also claims she raised concerns about a possible product liability risk arising from Kyckr's verification of UBOs (ultimate beneficial owner), 'which was returning inaccurate results to regulated clients' in up to 20 per cent of cases. UBO searches are crucial for preventing financial crime such as money laundering and terrorist financing by identifying the key owners of entities, even if they are owned through a complex web of companies. Court documents allege that Kyckr chief operations officer Steve Lamb and White were involved in her wrongful dismissal because she objected to concealing issues from a potential purchaser, Sydney-founded anti-money laundering solutions business Encompass Corporation. In her wrongful dismissal claim, Glover alleges she and Phelan were sacked for refusing 'to participate in this cover-up'.

Jim Chalmers treads middle path between unions and business on artificial intelligence
Jim Chalmers treads middle path between unions and business on artificial intelligence

ABC News

time10 minutes ago

  • ABC News

Jim Chalmers treads middle path between unions and business on artificial intelligence

It was only last week the prime minister stood in front of three grieving parents to announce YouTube would be included in his social media ban for kids. One father was cradling an urn as he blamed social media for the loss of his daughter. It was a powerful example of a government, with bipartisan support, scrambling to catch up after the horse bolted on a new technology. Another was the News Media Bargaining Code, introduced by the Morrison government to force Google and Facebook to cough up for news content driving clicks on their sites. Leaving aside arguments about the effectiveness of both moves, they represent attempts at retrofitting regulation to put the social media genie at least partly back in the bottle. Which brings us to the current debate around how to regulate — or not — artificial intelligence. If the treasurer's reform roundtable kicking off in two weeks achieves nothing else, it has at least sharpened a long overdue debate about what role government should play in setting the rules of the road for AI. This technology is already upon us. AI is involved whenever we use search engines, digital assistants (think Siri or Alexa), streaming services (think Netflix), and social media. Banks, big tech, and cyber security firms are all racing to roll it out. Even the care sector is quickly developing ways to harness the opportunities. The Brotherhood of St. Laurence, a social justice organisation that provides aged care, disability and other community services, recently ran an eight-week trial of an AI tool. The results were overwhelmingly positive. Staff involved found AI saved them about an hour a day, which could then be spent focusing more on teams and participants. The technology also improved accessibility for staff with language barriers or neurodiversity. "AI has great potential to help community organisations work smarter, reach more people, and tackle long standing barriers to access and equity — if it's done right", Executive Director Travers McLeod told the ABC. "Used responsibly, AI can free up human time in a way that can generate impact for the communities in which we work and support." The benefits are clear, but McLeod also notes the importance of "strong ethical guardrails and a clear framework for lawful and ethical AI use, along with its environment impact, especially in the care economy". "AI must be used as an accelerant of equity and better outcomes for all, not in a way that grows inequity and poverty," he said. This is where the role of the government comes in. Some of these AI "guardrails" already exist in the care sector. Some exist in other sectors too. There's a federal Privacy Act, some states have a Human Rights Act, some industries have professional guidelines. There is, however, no single set of rules for the entire economy governing the "ethical" use of AI or how it can be used to replace human workers. This is the debate now raging ahead of the treasurer's roundtable. At one end of the spectrum sits the ACTU, which wants a national artificial intelligence act, and a new national AI authority to oversee "mandatory enforceable agreements" in every workplace, to ensure staff are consulted before technology is rolled out. At the other end of the spectrum, business groups and the Productivity Commission want as little additional regulation as possible. They argue existing rules are enough and don't want to slow down a technology viewed as crucial for Australia's future success. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is pitching himself as something of a Goldilocks on this. He says he wants to find the right balance "between over-regulating and under-regulating". This "sensible middle path", as Chalmers calls it, charts a course on AI regulation between those who want to "let it rip" and those who want to "pull the doona over the head". This sounds perfectly reasonable, but notably, it still represents a rejection of the union movement's position. Before this roundtable has even begun, the treasurer has said no to one of the ACTU's biggest demands. Indeed, the treasurer is openly siding with the Productivity Commission on this. "The PC's broad directions are largely consistent with the directions that I set out on the weekend." That is, that AI should be treated "as an enabler, not an enemy." This fundamental difference between the union movement and the Labor government over AI could become a bigger point of friction beyond this month's roundtable, given we're only at the start of the AI transformation. AI will increasingly change the way we live and work. There are bound to be jobs lost. Hopefully, new roles will also be created. Where this transformation leads to is difficult to predict, but the path is unlikely to be smooth. Having put its stake in the ground, the ACTU will now be there whenever jobs are lost, demanding much tougher AI rules than the government is willing to accept. The government is trying to strike the right balance between preventing mass redundancies forced by AI, while also preventing Australia falling behind those countries rapidly embracing the technology. Chalmers is optimistic the benefits will ultimately outweigh the risks. He won't want to be a prime minister 10 years from now trying to retrofit regulation after the AI horse has bolted. David Speers is national political lead and host of Insiders, which airs on ABC TV at 9am on Sunday or on iview.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store