Accused Domestic Violence Offenders Must Prove Why They Should Be Granted Bail

People accused of a serious domestic violence offence in Queensland will have to prove why they should get bail and be allowed back into the community before they face court.

Earlier this morning, the Queensland Parliament passed the Bail (Domestic Violence) and Another Act Amendment Bill 2017, which reverses the usual legal process where police and the prosecution would have to argue why a person should not be granted bail and kept in custody.

The bill came after mum-of-four Teresa Bradford was killed by her estranged husband, David Bradford inside her Gold Coast home in January. Mr Bradford had been released on bail for choking and bashing Ms Bradford, with his release catching Ms Bradford off guard.

Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls, who introduced the legislation, said the changes provided more security for victims. It has also included provisions for courts to order alleged offenders to be fitted with GPS tracking devices as a bail condition, and urgent appeal rights for victims.

He said that last year, 18 Queensland women died from domestic violence. “With more than 22,000 domestic violence protection orders flowing through the courts each year, it is time for this Parliament to act, it is time to do more and make a difference to these terrible statistics. [It’s] a simple rebalancing of the scales of justice … to tip the balance in the favour of community safety,” he said, adding that it would save lives.

“With over a quarter of the domestic violence deaths in Australia occurring in Queensland last year, we felt it necessary to take action to stop the talk and get going.

“We’ve only seen 46 of the 121 recommendations in the Not now, Not ever report actually implemented,” he said.

The State Government imposed several amendments to the LNP’s bill, and one of the changes, Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath said, was to ensure the bail reforms would apply to high-risk offenders, including those charged with strangulation, stalking and even animal cruelty charges. “These were important offences that weren’t picked up by the private member’s bill that we think enhances the reverse onus conditions when it comes to bail,” she said.

The State Government and crossbench also rejected the LNP’s proposal to make it mandatory for victims and their families to be formally notified when perpetrators were granted bail or parole. Ms D’Ath General said there were already provisions in place for that to happen.

Meanwhile, anti-domestic violence advocate Sonia Anderson said it should have been made law. “I see that as a basic human right “” that if a violent offender applies for or receives bail or parole the family must be notified, so if they need to move or do something for their safety they can,” Ms Anderson said.

Queensland Women’s Legal Service spokeswoman Angela Lynch congratulated the LNP for taking a decisive action, but expressed concern that the LNP’s bill was too broad. “We don’t agree with their proposal of a blanket reversal of onus in bail apps in all DV matters. [We] prefer an approach that is more nuanced, we prefer an approach where an extension of high-risk matters “” where a defendant must show cause “” to include high-risk DV matters,” she said. “A DV risk assessment determines that a matter is high-risk then the court should take that on board,” she added.

Source: Abc.net.au