1

Hotham, Emma

From: Kilpatrick, AmySent: Thursday, 2 April 2020 11:05 AMTo: Martin, Victor; Axell, AnitaSubject: NSW provisions

  What are those circumstances Victor? 

1

1

Hotham, Emma

From: Axell, AnitaSent: Thursday, 2 April 2020 11:07 AMTo: Martin, VictorSubject: Queensland

UNCLASSIFIED 

Queensland – introduced judge alone trials in 2008. Either prosecution or defence apply and judge must determine it is in the interests of justice. Where the prosecution applies it will only proceed by way of judge alone if the accused consents.  

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1986 – SECT 132

Orders for trial by Judge alone

(1)An accused person or the prosecutor in criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court or District

Court may apply to the court for an order that the accused person be tried by a Judge alone (a

“trial by judge order” ).

(2)The court must make a trial by judge order if both the accused person and the prosecutor agree

to the accused person being tried by a Judge alone.

(3)If the accused person does not agree to being tried by a Judge alone, the court must not make

a trial by judge order.

(4)If the prosecutor does not agree to the accused person being tried by a Judge alone, the court

may make a trial by judge order if it considers it is in the interests of justice to do so.

(5)Without limiting subsection (4), the court may refuse to make an order if it considers that the

trial will involve a factual issue that requires the application of objective community standards,

including (but not limited to) an issue of reasonableness, negligence, indecency, obscenity or

dangerousness.

(6)The court must not make a trial by judge order unless it is satisfied that the accused person has

sought and received advice in relation to the effect of such an order from an Australian legal

practitioner.

(7) The court may make a trial by judge order despite any other provision of this section or section

132A if the court is of the opinion that:

(a) there is a substantial risk that acts that may constitute an offence under Division 3 of Part 7 of

the Crimes Act 1900 are likely to be committed in respect of any jury or juror, and

(b) the risk of those acts occurring may not reasonably be mitigated by other means.

2

2

Anita Axell | Senior Legal Policy Officer Phone 02 6205 4104 Criminal Law Group | Legislation, Policy & Programs | Justice and Community Safety Directorate GPO Box 158 Canberra ACT 2601 | www.act.gov.au 

3

1

Hotham, Emma

From: Axell, AnitaSent: Thursday, 2 April 2020 11:26 AMTo: Rumble, Penelope; Martin, VictorSubject: RE: QLD Covid-19 response bill

UNCLASSIFIED 

WA’s emergency Bill (yesterday) – only had offences in it.  

https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/Bills.nsf/0E2903B5C6DC8DBB4825853B001BE3EC/$File/Bill177‐1.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/ files/Speeches/2019/CriminalTrialsPublicNotice16March2020.pdf Trials are suspended.  

Main provision is s118 – Criminal Procedure Act 2004 Division 7 — Trial by judge alone 117. Application of this Division A reference in any written law to a person being tried or triable by or before a jury, or to the trial of a person taking place before a jury, is, unless the context otherwise requires, to be read as including a reference to a person being tried or triable by a judge alone, or to the trial of a person taking place before a judge alone, under this Division. 118. Trial by judge alone without jury may be ordered (1) If an accused is committed on a charge to a superior courtor indicted in a superior court on a charge, the prosecutor or the accused may apply to the court for an order thatthe trial of the charge be by a judge alone without a jury. (2) Any such application must be made before the identityof the trial judge is known to the parties. Criminal Procedure Act 2004 Prosecutions in superior courts Part 4 Trial byjudge alone Division 7s. 119 As at 13 Sep 2017 Version 03‐e0‐02 page 99 Published on www.legislation.wa.gov.au (3) On such anapplication, the court may inform itself in any way it thinks fit. (4) On such an application the court may make theorder if it considers it is in the interests of justice to do so but, on an application by the prosecutor, must not do sounless the accused consents. (5) Without limiting subsection (4), the court may make the order if it considers — (a)that the trial, due to its complexity or length or both, is likely to be unreasonably burdensome to a jury; or (b) that itis likely that acts that may constitute an offence under The Criminal Code section 123 would be committed inrespect of a member of a jury. (6) Without limiting subsection (4), the court may refuse to make the order if itconsiders the trial will involve a factual issue that requires the application of objective community standards such asan issue of reasonableness, negligence, indecency, obscenity or dangerousness. (7) If an accused is charged with 2 ormore charges that are to be tried together, the court must not make such an order in respect of one of the chargesunless the court also makes such an order in respect of each other charge. (8) If 2 or more accused are to be triedtogether, the court must not make such an order in respect of one of the accused unless the court also makes suchan order in respect of each other accused. (9) If such an order is made, the court cannot cancel the order after theidentity of the trial judge is known to the parties. 119. Law and procedure to be applied (1) In a trial by a judgealone, the judge must apply, so far as is practicable, the same principles of law and procedure as would be applied ina trial before a jury.

Anita Axell | Senior Legal Policy Officer Phone 02 6205 4104 Criminal Law Group | Legislation, Policy & Programs | Justice and Community Safety Directorate GPO Box 158 Canberra ACT 2601 | www.act.gov.au 

4

2

From: Rumble, Penelope <Penelope.Rumble@act.gov.au>  Sent: Thursday, 2 April 2020 11:08 AM To: Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au> Cc: Martin, Victor <Victor.Martin@act.gov.au> Subject: QLD Covid‐19 response bill 

UNCLASSIFIED 

Hi AA & VHM, 

As far as I can see this is the only bill which could be described as QLD’s broad COVID‐19 response – there was another super‐brief one about declaration of public health emergencies. 

Can’t see anything re indictable offences or trials based on a quick review. Will read in more. 

Cheers 

Penny  ___ 

Penelope Rumble  Senior Legal Policy Officer  Criminal Law Group | Legislation, Policy & Programs Justice and Community Safety Directorate | ACT Government Ph: 02 6207 7972 | penelope.rumble@act.gov.au  Level 4, 12 Moore Street Canberra ACT 2601 | GPO Box 158 Canberra ACT 2601  

5

1

Hotham, Emma

From: Martin, VictorSent: Thursday, 2 April 2020 11:41 AMTo: Kilpatrick, AmyCc: Glenn, Richard; Smith, Rebekah (Health); Hughes, Cherie; Axell, Anita; Rosenberg, MadelonSubject: RE: Supreme Court Act 1933 - judge alone

UNCLASSIFIED Sensitive: Cabinet 

WA does. QLD doe not. 

VHM 

From: Kilpatrick, Amy <Amy.Kilpatrick@act.gov.au>  Sent: Thursday, 2 April 2020 11:39 AM To: Martin, Victor <Victor.Martin@act.gov.au> Cc: Glenn, Richard <Richard.Glenn@act.gov.au>; Smith, Rebekah <Rebekah.Smith@act.gov.au>; Hughes, Cherie <Cherie.Hughes@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au>; Rosenberg, Madelon <Madelon.Rosenberg@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Supreme Court Act 1933 ‐ judge alone  

Thank you. To be certain ‐ Does QLD or WA have an ‘interest of justice’ provision for judge alone or jury trials? 

From: Martin, Victor <Victor.Martin@act.gov.au>  Sent: Thursday, 2 April 2020 11:36 AM To: Kilpatrick, Amy <Amy.Kilpatrick@act.gov.au> Cc: Glenn, Richard <Richard.Glenn@act.gov.au>; Smith, Rebekah <Rebekah.Smith@act.gov.au>; Hughes, Cherie <Cherie.Hughes@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au>; Rosenberg, Madelon <Madelon.Rosenberg@act.gov.au> Subject: Supreme Court Act 1933 ‐ judge alone  Importance: High 

UNCLASSIFIED Sensitive: Cabinet 

Hi Amy 

New South Wales New South Wales has adopted the COVID‐19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures) Bill 2020 (NSW) to make amendments to the Criminal Procedures Act 1986 (NSW). The NSW approach, in short, can be described as a judicial discretion, with consent of the accused person, that the accused be tried by a Judge alone. This effectively gives a right of veto for the accused.  

Queensland In Queensland has not amended its criminal procedures legislation to deal with the COVI‐19 public health emergency. In Queensland, all new trials in the Supreme and District Court requiring a jury have been suspended as a precaution during the COVID‐19 public health emergency. Criminal trials already started before a jury in Supreme and District Courts will continue until conclusion. Other court cases will proceed.  

Western Australia The WA Supreme Court has suspended jury trials for the duration of the COVID‐19 public health emergency. Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2004, (s118): Either party may apply for a trial to be conducted by judge alone; and 

6

2

The court may determine that the trial is conducted by judge alone if is in the interests of justice to do so having regard to a number of non‐exhaustive considerations (see below).  

New South Wales Division 4 Judge alone trials 365 Judge alone trials  (1) A court may, on its own motion, order that an accused person be tried by a Judge alone.(2) A court may make an order under subsection (1) only if—(a) the accused person consents to be tried by a Judge alone or, for a joint trial, all the accused persons consent tobe tried by a Judge alone, and(b) if the prosecutor does not agree to the accused person being tried by a Judge alone, the court considers it is inthe interests of justice for the accused person to be tried by a Judge alone, and(c) the court is satisfied the accused person has sought and received advice from an Australian legal practitioner inrelation to the effect of an order that the person be tried by a Judge alone.(3) This section applies despite any other provision of this Act, including sections 132 and 132A.

Queensland https://www.justice.qld.gov.au/community‐engagement/emergency 

Western Australia Court may order if Judge alone trial if it considers — (a) that the trial, due to its complexity or length or both, is likely to be unreasonably burdensome to a jury; or (b) that it is likely that acts that may constitute an offence under The Criminal Code section 123 would be committed in respect of a member of a jury. (6) Without limiting subsection (4), the court may refuse to make the order if it considers the trial will involve a factual issue that requires the application of objective community standards such as an issue of reasonableness, negligence, indecency, obscenity or dangerousness. 

7

From: Ng, DanielTo: Garrisson, PeterCc: Greenland, Karen; Murray, Gerry; JACSMedia; Williams, JackS; Axell, Anita; Leece, Kristin; Martin, VictorSubject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trialsDate: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:31:31 PMAttachments: image003.jpg

image004.pngimage005.png

Dear PeterAs discussed, see below proposed response regarding the CT query that the AG’s office haverecently received.Grateful if you could confirm that you are OK with the proposed response.If you have no objections, JACS Media – you can take this as cleared by me to go to Jennifer.Proposed response:The Attorney-General supports the view that the provision is constitutionally valid.As we understand that this issue is to be considered in upcoming proceedings in the SupremeCourt, it would not be appropriate to provide any further comment on the issue at this time.

Daniel Ng | Acting Executive Group Manager | Legislation, Policy & Programs | Justice and Community Safety Directorate | ACT GovernmentLevel 4, 12 Moore Street, CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 | GPO Box 158, CANBERRA ACT 2608Telephone: (02) 6207 0674 | Facsimile: (02) 6205 0937| Email: Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au

From: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au> Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:06 PMTo: Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au>Cc: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; Greenland, Karen <Karen.Greenland@act.gov.au>;Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>Subject: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials

OFFICIALHi Anita and Jack,Apologies for the urgent media enquiry. Are you able to provide a response to the belowquestion from the AG’s office? I’ll get it into TRIM now.Let me know if getting it back to us for DDG approval by 4:30pm is going to be a problem and Ican update Lachlan.Kind regards,Annie WilliamsAssistant Director | JACS Communications, Engagement and Media

Office of the Chief Operating Officer | Justice and Community Safety Directorate Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City ACT 2601

8

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii), Sch 1 s 1.1A, Sch 1 s 1.2

DirectJACS Media 02 6207 7173 Email JACSmedia@act.gov.auJACS website justice.act.gov.auACT Emergency Services Agency 24hr media line 02 6207 8564 (strictly for media enquiries only)

From: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au> Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 1:41 PMTo: Pope, Lewis <Lewis.Pope@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>Subject: FW: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trialsHello team,See below a request from Jasper. If we can have a draft response by 5pm, that would be great.Talk soonLachlanLachlan Roberts (he/him)Media Adviser | ACT GreensMinister Shane Rattenbury and Minister Rebecca Vassarottim: | t: 02 6207 6478e: Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au

From: Jasper Lindell < Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 1:39 PMTo: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au>Subject: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trialsCAUTION: This email originated from outside of the ACT Government. Do not click links or open attachmentsunless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.Hi Lachlan,Good to chat on the phone.Keen to hear from the Attorney-General on whether amendments to section 68B of the SupremeCourt ACT 1933 (ACT), which allowed judges to order judge-alone trials without the consent ofthe accused, were within the constitutional powers of the territory?A new paper co-authored by Jane Campbell, since appoint special magistrate, argues theamendments may have breached the constitutional power of the territory and the legalfoundation for the amendment was ambiguous and likely breached the Kable Doctrine (see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kable_v_Director_of_Public_Prosecutions_(NSW)).Writing for Sunday - so a response by COB would be much appreciated. Give me a call if thereare any dramas.Cheers,Jasper--

Jasper Lindell Journalist

9

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

1

Hotham, Emma

From: Isaacson, NicoleSent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:26 PMTo: Williams, JackSCc: JACSMedia; Ng, Daniel; McNeill, Jennifer; Holmes, Joanne; Murray, GerrySubject: URGENT: MED:2021/000009 : Rattenbury Media Qn - Constitutionality of judge only trialsAttachments: Rattenbury Media Qn - Constitutionality of judge only trials.tr5

UNOFFICIAL   Hi Jack, please see attached media question for urgent response on judge‐only trials, following Annie's email earlier. Please let me know if you have any issues accessing.  Kind regards, Nicole Isaacson Assistant Director | JACS Communications, Engagement and Media Office of the Chief Operating Officer | Justice and Community Safety Directorate Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City ACT 2601 Direct  JACS Media 02 6207 7173 Email JACSmedia@act.gov.au JACS website justice.act.gov.au ACT Emergency Services Agency 24hr media line 02 6207 8564 (strictly for media enquiries only)   

11

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

12

1

Hotham, Emma

From: Ng, DanielSent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:33 PMTo: Isaacson, Nicole; Williams, JackSCc: JACSMedia; McNeill, Jennifer; Holmes, Joanne; Murray, GerrySubject: RE: URGENT: MED:2021/000009 : Rattenbury Media Qn - Constitutionality of judge only trials

Thanks Nicole.   I'm just settling an answer with Peter Garrisson by email (hadn't quite seen your email when I was doing so). I'll drop my proposed response into the TRIM packet now.   D  Daniel Ng | Acting Executive Group Manager | Legislation, Policy & Programs | Justice and Community Safety Directorate | ACT Government Level 4, 12 Moore Street, CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 | GPO Box 158, CANBERRA ACT 2608 Telephone: (02) 6207 0674 | Facsimile: (02) 6205 0937| Email: Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Isaacson, Nicole <Nicole.Isaacson@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:26 PM To: Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au> Cc: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; McNeill, Jennifer <Jennifer.McNeill@act.gov.au>; Holmes, Joanne <Joanne.Holmes@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au> Subject: URGENT: MED:2021/000009 : Rattenbury Media Qn ‐ Constitutionality of judge only trials  UNOFFICIAL   Hi Jack, please see attached media question for urgent response on judge‐only trials, following Annie's email earlier. Please let me know if you have any issues accessing.  Kind regards, Nicole Isaacson Assistant Director | JACS Communications, Engagement and Media Office of the Chief Operating Officer | Justice and Community Safety Directorate Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City ACT 2601 Direct   JACS Media 02 6207 7173 Email JACSmedia@act.gov.au JACS website justice.act.gov.au ACT Emergency Services Agency 24hr media line 02 6207 8564 (strictly for media enquiries only)   

13

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

1

Hotham, Emma

From: JACSMediaSent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:37 PMTo: Ng, DanielCc: JACSMedia; Murray, GerrySubject: RE: URGENT: MED:2021/000009 : Rattenbury Media Qn - Constitutionality of judge only trials

UNOFFICIAL  Apologies, we are having access control issues with TRIM ‐ we will work off the document you sent through to Peter Garrison.  Once he okays it, we will send on to Jennifer for approval.  Thanks, Nicole  ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:34 PM To: Isaacson, Nicole <Nicole.Isaacson@act.gov.au> Cc: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: URGENT: MED:2021/000009 : Rattenbury Media Qn ‐ Constitutionality of judge only trials  Also I don't think I have access to the packet...   Daniel Ng | Acting Executive Group Manager | Legislation, Policy & Programs | Justice and Community Safety Directorate | ACT Government Level 4, 12 Moore Street, CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 | GPO Box 158, CANBERRA ACT 2608 Telephone: (02) 6207 0674 | Facsimile: (02) 6205 0937| Email: Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Isaacson, Nicole <Nicole.Isaacson@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:26 PM To: Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au> Cc: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; McNeill, Jennifer <Jennifer.McNeill@act.gov.au>; Holmes, Joanne <Joanne.Holmes@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au> Subject: URGENT: MED:2021/000009 : Rattenbury Media Qn ‐ Constitutionality of judge only trials  UNOFFICIAL   Hi Jack, please see attached media question for urgent response on judge‐only trials, following Annie's email earlier. Please let me know if you have any issues accessing.  Kind regards, Nicole Isaacson Assistant Director | JACS Communications, Engagement and Media Office of the Chief Operating Officer | Justice and Community Safety Directorate Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City ACT 2601 Direct   JACS Media 02 6207 7173 Email JACSmedia@act.gov.au JACS website justice.act.gov.au ACT Emergency Services Agency 24hr media line 02 6207 8564 (strictly for media enquiries only)  

14

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

1

Hotham, Emma

From: Garrisson, PeterSent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:39 PMTo: Ng, DanielCc: Greenland, Karen; Murray, Gerry; JACSMedia; Williams, JackS; Axell, Anita; Leece, Kristin; Martin,

Victor; Bowcock, HannahSubject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials

OFFICIAL  

ACT SOLICITOR-GENERAL (see confidentiality notice below) 

Looks fine. Regards Peter Garrisson AM SC | Solicitor-General for the Australian Capital Territory Ph:02 | Fax:02 620 70630 | DX 5602 Canberra | PO Box 260 Civic Square ACT 2608 www.actgs.act.gov.au Ref: This e-mail, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.

From: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:31 PM To: Garrisson, Peter <Peter.Garrisson@act.gov.au> Cc: Greenland, Karen <Karen.Greenland@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au>; Leece, Kristin <Kristin.Leece@act.gov.au>; Martin, Victor <Victor.Martin@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  Dear Peter  As discussed, see below proposed response regarding the CT query that the AG’s office have recently received.   Grateful if you could confirm that you are OK with the proposed response.   If you have no objections, JACS Media – you can take this as cleared by me to go to Jennifer.   Proposed response:  The Attorney‐General supports the view that the provision is constitutionally valid.   As we understand that this issue is to be considered in upcoming proceedings in the Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate to provide any further comment on the issue at this time.   

   

15

Sch 2 s 2 2 (a)(ii)

2

 Daniel Ng | Acting Executive Group Manager | Legislation, Policy & Programs | Justice and Community Safety Directorate | ACT Government Level 4, 12 Moore Street, CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 | GPO Box 158, CANBERRA ACT 2608

Telephone: (02) 6207 0674 | Facsimile: (02) 6205 0937| Email: Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au

 

From: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:06 PM To: Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au> Cc: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; Greenland, Karen <Karen.Greenland@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au> Subject: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  

OFFICIAL  Hi Anita and Jack,  Apologies for the urgent media enquiry. Are you able to provide a response to the below question from the AG’s office? I’ll get it into TRIM now.  Let me know if getting it back to us for DDG approval by 4:30pm is going to be a problem and I can update Lachlan.  Kind regards,  Annie Williams Assistant Director | JACS Communications, Engagement and Media   Office of the Chief Operating Officer | Justice and Community Safety Directorate  Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City ACT 2601  Direct  JACS Media 02 6207 7173 Email JACSmedia@act.gov.au JACS website justice.act.gov.au  ACT Emergency Services Agency 24hr media line 02 6207 8564 (strictly for media enquiries only) 

   

From: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 1:41 PM To: Pope, Lewis <Lewis.Pope@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au> Subject: FW: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  Hello team,   See below a request from Jasper. If we can have a draft response by 5pm, that would be great.   

16Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii), Sch 1 s 1.1A, Sch 1 s 1.2

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

3

Talk soon  Lachlan   Lachlan Roberts (he/him) Media Adviser | ACT Greens Minister Shane Rattenbury and Minister Rebecca Vassarotti m: | t: 02 6207 6478 e: Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au

     

From: Jasper Lindell    Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 1:39 PM To: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au> Subject: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the ACT Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. 

 Hi Lachlan,   Good to chat on the phone.  Keen to hear from the Attorney‐General on whether amendments to section 68B of the Supreme Court ACT 1933 (ACT), which allowed judges to order judge‐alone trials without the consent of the accused, were within the constitutional powers of the territory?  A new paper co‐authored by Jane Campbell, since appoint special magistrate, argues the amendments may have breached the constitutional power of the territory and the legal foundation for the amendment was ambiguous and likely breached the Kable Doctrine (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)).  Writing for Sunday ‐ so a response by COB would be much appreciated. Give me a call if there are any dramas.  Cheers, Jasper  ‐‐  

Jasper Lindell Journalist The Canberra Times 

17

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

4

t m 9 Pirie Street, Fyshwick, ACT 2609 

m

m

 

 The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Australian Community Media does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Australian Community Media does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. 

18Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii) Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

1

Hotham, Emma

From: Ng, DanielSent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:44 PMTo: JACSMediaCc: Murray, GerrySubject: RE: URGENT: MED:2021/000009 : Rattenbury Media Qn - Constitutionality of judge only trials

Thanks Nicole.  

As you would have seen, it is right to go now.  

Daniel  

Daniel Ng | Acting Executive Group Manager | Legislation, Policy & Programs | Justice and Community Safety Directorate | ACT Government Level 4, 12 Moore Street, CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 | GPO Box 158, CANBERRA ACT 2608 Telephone: (02) 6207 0674 | Facsimile: (02) 6205 0937| Email: Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:37 PM To: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au> Cc: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: URGENT: MED:2021/000009 : Rattenbury Media Qn ‐ Constitutionality of judge only trials 

UNOFFICIAL 

Apologies, we are having access control issues with TRIM ‐ we will work off the document you sent through to Peter Garrison.  Once he okays it, we will send on to Jennifer for approval. 

Thanks, Nicole 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:34 PM To: Isaacson, Nicole <Nicole.Isaacson@act.gov.au> Cc: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: URGENT: MED:2021/000009 : Rattenbury Media Qn ‐ Constitutionality of judge only trials 

Also I don't think I have access to the packet...  

Daniel Ng | Acting Executive Group Manager | Legislation, Policy & Programs | Justice and Community Safety Directorate | ACT Government Level 4, 12 Moore Street, CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 | GPO Box 158, CANBERRA ACT 2608 Telephone: (02) 6207 0674 | Facsimile: (02) 6205 0937| Email: Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Isaacson, Nicole <Nicole.Isaacson@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:26 PM To: Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au> 

19

2

Cc: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; McNeill, Jennifer <Jennifer.McNeill@act.gov.au>; Holmes, Joanne <Joanne.Holmes@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au> Subject: URGENT: MED:2021/000009 : Rattenbury Media Qn ‐ Constitutionality of judge only trials 

UNOFFICIAL 

 Hi Jack, please see attached media question for urgent response on judge‐only trials, following Annie's email earlier. Please let me know if you have any issues accessing. 

Kind regards, Nicole Isaacson Assistant Director | JACS Communications, Engagement and Media Office of the Chief Operating Officer | Justice and Community Safety Directorate Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City ACT 2601 Direct   JACS Media 02 6207 7173 Email JACSmedia@act.gov.au JACS website justice.act.gov.au ACT Emergency Services Agency 24hr media line 02 6207 8564 (strictly for media enquiries only) 

20

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

1

Hotham, Emma

From: Roberts, LachlanSent: Friday, 12 February 2021 3:01 PMTo: JACSMedia; Pope, LewisCc: Murray, GerrySubject: RE: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials

That will be fine, Ill let the journalist know that it might be a little later than 5pm.  

Talk soon  Lachlan  

Lachlan Roberts (he/him) Media Adviser | ACT Greens Minister Shane Rattenbury and Minister Rebecca Vassarotti m: | t: 02 6207 6478 e: Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au

From: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 3:00 PM To: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au>; Pope, Lewis <Lewis.Pope@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au> Cc: Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials 

UNOFFICIAL 

Hi Lachlan, thanks for sending through this request. We have a response prepared, it’s just going through final approvals but may not make it to you until just after the 5pm mark – is that ok? 

Nicole Isaacson Assistant Director | JACS Communications, Engagement and Media  Office of the Chief Operating Officer | Justice and Community Safety Directorate  Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City ACT 2601  Direct   JACS Media 02 6207 7173 Email JACSmedia@act.gov.au JACS website justice.act.gov.au  ACT Emergency Services Agency 24hr media line 02 6207 8564 (strictly for media enquiries only) 

21

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

2

 

From: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 1:41 PM To: Pope, Lewis <Lewis.Pope@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au> Subject: FW: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  Hello team,   See below a request from Jasper. If we can have a draft response by 5pm, that would be great.   Talk soon  Lachlan   Lachlan Roberts (he/him) Media Adviser | ACT Greens Minister Shane Rattenbury and Minister Rebecca Vassarotti m | t: 02 6207 6478 e: Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au

     

From: Jasper Lindell  >  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 1:39 PM To: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au> Subject: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the ACT Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. 

 Hi Lachlan,   Good to chat on the phone.  Keen to hear from the Attorney‐General on whether amendments to section 68B of the Supreme Court ACT 1933 (ACT), which allowed judges to order judge‐alone trials without the consent of the accused, were within the constitutional powers of the territory?  A new paper co‐authored by Jane Campbell, since appoint special magistrate, argues the amendments may have breached the constitutional power of the territory and the legal foundation for the amendment was ambiguous and likely breached the Kable Doctrine (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)).  

22

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

3

Writing for Sunday ‐ so a response by COB would be much appreciated. Give me a call if there are any dramas.  Cheers, Jasper  ‐‐  

Jasper Lindell Journalist The Canberra Times t m 9 Pirie Street, Fyshwick, ACT 2609 

m

m

 

 The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Australian Community Media does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Australian Community Media does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. 

23

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii) Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

1

Hotham, Emma

From: McNeill, JenniferSent: Friday, 12 February 2021 3:03 PMTo: JACSMediaCc: Murray, Gerry; Ng, Daniel; Williams, JackS; Holmes, JoanneSubject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials

OFFICIAL  Only a couple of small editorial changes from me.   The Attorney‐General supports the view that the provision is constitutionally valid.   Noting that this issue is to be considered in upcoming proceedings in the Supreme Court, the Attorney‐General does not propose to provide any further comment at this time.   Jennifer Jennifer McNeill I Deputy Director‐General Justice 

Justice and Community Safety Directorate I ACT Government 

Phone: +61 2 6205 3504 I Email: jennifer.mcneill@act.gov.au 

Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City I GPO Box 158, Canberra ACT 2601 I act.gov.au  

 

  

From: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:46 PM To: McNeill, Jennifer <Jennifer.McNeill@act.gov.au> Cc: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>; Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Holmes, Joanne <Joanne.Holmes@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  

OFFICIAL  Hi Jennifer, please see media question from the Canberra Times and proposed response and background information for the MO, cleared by Daniel and the AGSO – for your approval please. The journalist has provided a deadline of COB today.  Question from Canberra Times Keen to hear from the Attorney‐General on whether amendments to section 68B of the Supreme Court ACT 1933 (ACT), which allowed judges to order judge‐alone trials without the consent of the accused, were within the constitutional powers of the territory?  A new paper co‐authored by Jane Campbell, since appoint special magistrate, argues the amendments may have breached the constitutional power of the territory and the legal foundation for the amendment was ambiguous and likely breached the Kable Doctrine (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)). 

24

3

Cc: Greenland, Karen <Karen.Greenland@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au>; Leece, Kristin <Kristin.Leece@act.gov.au>; Martin, Victor <Victor.Martin@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  Dear Peter  As discussed, see below proposed response regarding the CT query that the AG’s office have recently received.   Grateful if you could confirm that you are OK with the proposed response.   If you have no objections, JACS Media – you can take this as cleared by me to go to Jennifer.   Proposed response:  The Attorney‐General supports the view that the provision is constitutionally valid.   As we understand that this issue is to be considered in upcoming proceedings in the Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate to provide any further comment on the issue at this time.   

   

  

   

  

 Daniel Ng | Acting Executive Group Manager | Legislation, Policy & Programs | Justice and Community Safety Directorate | ACT Government Level 4, 12 Moore Street, CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 | GPO Box 158, CANBERRA ACT 2608

Telephone: (02) 6207 0674 | Facsimile: (02) 6205 0937| Email: Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au

 

From: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:06 PM To: Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au> Cc: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; Greenland, Karen <Karen.Greenland@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au> Subject: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  

OFFICIAL  Hi Anita and Jack,  Apologies for the urgent media enquiry. Are you able to provide a response to the below question from the AG’s office? I’ll get it into TRIM now.  Let me know if getting it back to us for DDG approval by 4:30pm is going to be a problem and I can update Lachlan.  

26

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii), Sch 1 s 1.1A, Sch 1 s 1.2

4

Kind regards,  Annie Williams Assistant Director | JACS Communications, Engagement and Media   Office of the Chief Operating Officer | Justice and Community Safety Directorate  Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City ACT 2601  Direct   JACS Media 02 6207 7173 Email JACSmedia@act.gov.au JACS website justice.act.gov.au  ACT Emergency Services Agency 24hr media line 02 6207 8564 (strictly for media enquiries only) 

   

From: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 1:41 PM To: Pope, Lewis <Lewis.Pope@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au> Subject: FW: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  Hello team,   See below a request from Jasper. If we can have a draft response by 5pm, that would be great.   Talk soon  Lachlan   Lachlan Roberts (he/him) Media Adviser | ACT Greens Minister Shane Rattenbury and Minister Rebecca Vassarotti m: | t: 02 6207 6478 e: Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au

     

From: Jasper Lindell  >  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 1:39 PM To: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au> Subject: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the ACT Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. 

 

27

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

5

Hi Lachlan,   Good to chat on the phone.  Keen to hear from the Attorney‐General on whether amendments to section 68B of the Supreme Court ACT 1933 (ACT), which allowed judges to order judge‐alone trials without the consent of the accused, were within the constitutional powers of the territory?  A new paper co‐authored by Jane Campbell, since appoint special magistrate, argues the amendments may have breached the constitutional power of the territory and the legal foundation for the amendment was ambiguous and likely breached the Kable Doctrine (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)).  Writing for Sunday ‐ so a response by COB would be much appreciated. Give me a call if there are any dramas.  Cheers, Jasper  ‐‐  

Jasper Lindell Journalist The Canberra Times t m 9 Pirie Street, Fyshwick, ACT 2609 

m

 

 The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Australian Community Media does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Australian Community Media does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. 

28

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii) Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

1

Hotham, Emma

From: Murray, GerrySent: Friday, 12 February 2021 3:11 PMTo: McNeill, Jennifer; JACSMediaCc: Ng, Daniel; Williams, JackS; Holmes, JoanneSubject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials

OFFICIAL  Thank you Jennifer, Daniel and team for providing such a swift response to this urgent media enquiry from the Office. Really appreciate your combined intel and inputs.   I’ll forward onto the AGs office now for review.  Best regards, Gerry  

From: McNeill, Jennifer <Jennifer.McNeill@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 3:03 PM To: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au> Cc: Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>; Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Holmes, Joanne <Joanne.Holmes@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  

OFFICIAL  Only a couple of small editorial changes from me.   The Attorney‐General supports the view that the provision is constitutionally valid.   Noting that this issue is to be considered in upcoming proceedings in the Supreme Court, the Attorney‐General does not propose to provide any further comment at this time.   Jennifer Jennifer McNeill I Deputy Director‐General Justice 

Justice and Community Safety Directorate I ACT Government 

Phone: +61 2 6205 3504 I Email: jennifer.mcneill@act.gov.au 

Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City I GPO Box 158, Canberra ACT 2601 I act.gov.au  

 

  

From: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:46 PM To: McNeill, Jennifer <Jennifer.McNeill@act.gov.au> Cc: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>; Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Holmes, Joanne 

29

2

<Joanne.Holmes@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  

OFFICIAL  Hi Jennifer, please see media question from the Canberra Times and proposed response and background information for the MO, cleared by Daniel and the AGSO – for your approval please. The journalist has provided a deadline of COB today.  Question from Canberra Times Keen to hear from the Attorney‐General on whether amendments to section 68B of the Supreme Court ACT 1933 (ACT), which allowed judges to order judge‐alone trials without the consent of the accused, were within the constitutional powers of the territory?  A new paper co‐authored by Jane Campbell, since appoint special magistrate, argues the amendments may have breached the constitutional power of the territory and the legal foundation for the amendment was ambiguous and likely breached the Kable Doctrine (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)).  Proposed response: The Attorney‐General supports the view that the provision is constitutionally valid.   As we understand that this issue is to be considered in upcoming proceedings in the Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate to provide any further comment on the issue at this time.   

Kind regards, Nicole Isaacson Assistant Director | JACS Communications, Engagement and Media  Office of the Chief Operating Officer | Justice and Community Safety Directorate  Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City ACT 2601  Direct  JACS Media 02 6207 7173 Email JACSmedia@act.gov.au JACS website justice.act.gov.au  ACT Emergency Services Agency 24hr media line 02 6207 8564 (strictly for media enquiries only)   

From: Garrisson, Peter <Peter.Garrisson@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:39 PM To: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au> Cc: Greenland, Karen <Karen.Greenland@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au>; Leece, Kristin <Kristin.Leece@act.gov.au>; Martin, Victor <Victor.Martin@act.gov.au>; Bowcock, Hannah <Hannah.Bowcock@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  

OFFICIAL  

ACT SOLICITOR-GENERAL 

30

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii), Sch 1 s 1.1A, Sch 1 s 1.2

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

3

(see confidentiality notice below)  Looks fine. Regards Peter Garrisson AM SC | Solicitor-General for the Australian Capital Territory Ph:02 | Fax:02 620 70630 | DX 5602 Canberra | PO Box 260 Civic Square ACT 2608 www.actgs.act.gov.au Ref: This e-mail, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.

From: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:31 PM To: Garrisson, Peter <Peter.Garrisson@act.gov.au> Cc: Greenland, Karen <Karen.Greenland@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au>; Leece, Kristin <Kristin.Leece@act.gov.au>; Martin, Victor <Victor.Martin@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  Dear Peter  As discussed, see below proposed response regarding the CT query that the AG’s office have recently received.   Grateful if you could confirm that you are OK with the proposed response.   If you have no objections, JACS Media – you can take this as cleared by me to go to Jennifer.   Proposed response:  The Attorney‐General supports the view that the provision is constitutionally valid.   As we understand that this issue is to be considered in upcoming proceedings in the Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate to provide any further comment on the issue at this time.   

Daniel Ng | Acting Executive Group Manager | Legislation, Policy & Programs | Justice and Community Safety Directorate | ACT Government Level 4, 12 Moore Street, CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 | GPO Box 158, CANBERRA ACT 2608

Telephone: (02) 6207 0674 | Facsimile: (02) 6205 0937| Email: Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au

31

Sch 2 s 2 2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii), Sch 1 s 1.1A, Sch 1 s 1.2

4

From: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:06 PM To: Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au> Cc: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; Greenland, Karen <Karen.Greenland@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au> Subject: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials 

OFFICIAL 

Hi Anita and Jack, 

Apologies for the urgent media enquiry. Are you able to provide a response to the below question from the AG’s office? I’ll get it into TRIM now. 

Let me know if getting it back to us for DDG approval by 4:30pm is going to be a problem and I can update Lachlan. 

Kind regards, 

Annie Williams Assistant Director | JACS Communications, Engagement and Media  

Office of the Chief Operating Officer | Justice and Community Safety Directorate  Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City ACT 2601  Direct   JACS Media 02 6207 7173 Email JACSmedia@act.gov.au JACS website justice.act.gov.au  ACT Emergency Services Agency 24hr media line 02 6207 8564 (strictly for media enquiries only) 

From: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 1:41 PM To: Pope, Lewis <Lewis.Pope@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au> Subject: FW: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials 

Hello team,  

See below a request from Jasper. If we can have a draft response by 5pm, that would be great.  

Talk soon  Lachlan  

Lachlan Roberts (he/him) Media Adviser | ACT Greens Minister Shane Rattenbury and Minister Rebecca Vassarotti m: | t: 02 6207 6478 e: Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au

32

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

5

     

From: Jasper Lindell <   Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 1:39 PM To: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au> Subject: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the ACT Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. 

 Hi Lachlan,   Good to chat on the phone.  Keen to hear from the Attorney‐General on whether amendments to section 68B of the Supreme Court ACT 1933 (ACT), which allowed judges to order judge‐alone trials without the consent of the accused, were within the constitutional powers of the territory?  A new paper co‐authored by Jane Campbell, since appoint special magistrate, argues the amendments may have breached the constitutional power of the territory and the legal foundation for the amendment was ambiguous and likely breached the Kable Doctrine (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)).  Writing for Sunday ‐ so a response by COB would be much appreciated. Give me a call if there are any dramas.  Cheers, Jasper  ‐‐  

Jasper Lindell Journalist The Canberra Times t m 9 Pirie Street, Fyshwick, ACT 2609 

m

 

 The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender

33

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii) Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

6

immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Australian Community Media does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Australian Community Media does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. 

34

1

Hotham, Emma

From: Roberts, LachlanSent: Friday, 12 February 2021 3:37 PMTo: Murray, GerryCc: JACSMediaSubject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials

Appreciate it Gerry.  Talk soon  Lachlan   Lachlan Roberts (he/him) Media Adviser | ACT Greens Minister Shane Rattenbury and Minister Rebecca Vassarotti m: | t: 02 6207 6478 e: Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au

     

From: Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 3:19 PM To: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au> Cc: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au> Subject: FW: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials  

OFFICIAL  Afternoon Lachlan,  Hope your Friday’s going well. Please see JACS‐cleared response to the CT media enquiry put forward earlier today. This has been cleared through to Jennifer McNeill, DDG, Justice.  Let us know if you need anything further.  All the best, Gerry   

From: McNeill, Jennifer <Jennifer.McNeill@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 3:03 PM To: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au> 

35

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

2

Cc: Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>; Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Holmes, Joanne <Joanne.Holmes@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials 

OFFICIAL 

Only a couple of small editorial changes from me. 

The Attorney‐General supports the view that the provision is constitutionally valid.  

Noting that this issue is to be considered in upcoming proceedings in the Supreme Court, the Attorney‐General does not propose to provide any further comment at this time.  

Jennifer Jennifer McNeill I Deputy Director‐General Justice 

Justice and Community Safety Directorate I ACT Government 

Phone: +61 2 6205 3504 I Email: jennifer.mcneill@act.gov.au 

Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City I GPO Box 158, Canberra ACT 2601 I act.gov.au  

From: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:46 PM To: McNeill, Jennifer <Jennifer.McNeill@act.gov.au> Cc: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>; Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Holmes, Joanne <Joanne.Holmes@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials 

OFFICIAL 

Hi Jennifer, please see media question from the Canberra Times and proposed response and background information for the MO, cleared by Daniel and the AGSO – for your approval please. The journalist has provided a deadline of COB today. 

Question from Canberra Times Keen to hear from the Attorney‐General on whether amendments to section 68B of the Supreme Court ACT 1933 (ACT), which allowed judges to order judge‐alone trials without the consent of the accused, were within the constitutional powers of the territory? 

A new paper co‐authored by Jane Campbell, since appoint special magistrate, argues the amendments may have breached the constitutional power of the territory and the legal foundation for the amendment was ambiguous and 

36

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii), Sch 1 s 1.1A, Sch 1 s 1.2

3

likely breached the Kable Doctrine (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)). 

Proposed response: The Attorney‐General supports the view that the provision is constitutionally valid.  

As we understand that this issue is to be considered in upcoming proceedings in the Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate to provide any further comment on the issue at this time.  

Kind regards, Nicole Isaacson Assistant Director | JACS Communications, Engagement and Media  Office of the Chief Operating Officer | Justice and Community Safety Directorate  Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City ACT 2601  Direct  JACS Media 02 6207 7173 Email JACSmedia@act.gov.au JACS website justice.act.gov.au  ACT Emergency Services Agency 24hr media line 02 6207 8564 (strictly for media enquiries only) 

From: Garrisson, Peter <Peter.Garrisson@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:39 PM To: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au> Cc: Greenland, Karen <Karen.Greenland@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au>; Leece, Kristin <Kristin.Leece@act.gov.au>; Martin, Victor <Victor.Martin@act.gov.au>; Bowcock, Hannah <Hannah.Bowcock@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials 

OFFICIAL 

ACT SOLICITOR-GENERAL (see confidentiality notice below) 

Looks fine.

Regards

Peter Garrisson AM SC | Solicitor-General for the Australian Capital Territory Ph | Fax:02 620 70630 | DX 5602 Canberra | PO Box 260 Civic Square ACT 2608 www.actgs.act.gov.au

Ref:

This e-mail, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.

37

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii), Sch 1 s 1.1A, Sch 1 s 1.2

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

4

From: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:31 PM To: Garrisson, Peter <Peter.Garrisson@act.gov.au> Cc: Greenland, Karen <Karen.Greenland@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>; Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au>; Leece, Kristin <Kristin.Leece@act.gov.au>; Martin, Victor <Victor.Martin@act.gov.au> Subject: RE: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials 

Dear Peter 

As discussed, see below proposed response regarding the CT query that the AG’s office have recently received.  

Grateful if you could confirm that you are OK with the proposed response.  

If you have no objections, JACS Media – you can take this as cleared by me to go to Jennifer.  

Proposed response: 

The Attorney‐General supports the view that the provision is constitutionally valid.  

As we understand that this issue is to be considered in upcoming proceedings in the Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate to provide any further comment on the issue at this time.  

Daniel Ng | Acting Executive Group Manager | Legislation, Policy & Programs | Justice and Community Safety Directorate | ACT Government Level 4, 12 Moore Street, CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 | GPO Box 158, CANBERRA ACT 2608

Telephone: (02) 6207 0674 | Facsimile: (02) 6205 0937| Email: Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au

From: JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 2:06 PM To: Williams, JackS <JackS.Williams@act.gov.au>; Axell, Anita <Anita.Axell@act.gov.au> Cc: Ng, Daniel <Daniel.Ng@act.gov.au>; Greenland, Karen <Karen.Greenland@act.gov.au>; Murray, Gerry <Gerry.Murray@act.gov.au> Subject: Urgent media inquiry: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials 

OFFICIAL 

Hi Anita and Jack, 

Apologies for the urgent media enquiry. Are you able to provide a response to the below question from the AG’s office? I’ll get it into TRIM now. 

38

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii), Sch 1 s 1.1A, Sch 1 s 1.2

5

Let me know if getting it back to us for DDG approval by 4:30pm is going to be a problem and I can update Lachlan. 

Kind regards, 

Annie Williams Assistant Director | JACS Communications, Engagement and Media  

Office of the Chief Operating Officer | Justice and Community Safety Directorate  Level 9, 12 Moore Street, Canberra City ACT 2601  Direct   JACS Media 02 6207 7173 Email JACSmedia@act.gov.au JACS website justice.act.gov.au  ACT Emergency Services Agency 24hr media line 02 6207 8564 (strictly for media enquiries only) 

From: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au>  Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 1:41 PM To: Pope, Lewis <Lewis.Pope@act.gov.au>; JACSMedia <JACSMedia@act.gov.au> Subject: FW: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials 

Hello team,  

See below a request from Jasper. If we can have a draft response by 5pm, that would be great.  

Talk soon  Lachlan  

Lachlan Roberts (he/him) Media Adviser | ACT Greens Minister Shane Rattenbury and Minister Rebecca Vassarotti m: | t: 02 6207 6478 e: Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au

From: Jasper Lindell    Sent: Friday, 12 February 2021 1:39 PM To: Roberts, Lachlan <Lachlan.Roberts@act.gov.au> Subject: Media: Constitutional validity of stopping jury trials 

39

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)

6

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the ACT Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. 

Hi Lachlan,  

Good to chat on the phone. 

Keen to hear from the Attorney‐General on whether amendments to section 68B of the Supreme Court ACT 1933 (ACT), which allowed judges to order judge‐alone trials without the consent of the accused, were within the constitutional powers of the territory? 

A new paper co‐authored by Jane Campbell, since appoint special magistrate, argues the amendments may have breached the constitutional power of the territory and the legal foundation for the amendment was ambiguous and likely breached the Kable Doctrine (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)). 

Writing for Sunday ‐ so a response by COB would be much appreciated. Give me a call if there are any dramas. 

Cheers, Jasper 

‐‐  

Jasper Lindell Journalist The Canberra Times t m 9 Pirie Street, Fyshwick, ACT 2609 

m

The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. Australian Community Media does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Australian Community Media does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or attached files. 

40

Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii) Sch 2 s 2.2 (a)(ii)