The following page show the changes to the NSW Legislation that have been brought about by all of you, helping our cause. Changes to the laws to help prevent an accident like this from ever happening again! "Brendy's Law" is a tribute to a 9 year old boy who by his Aunt's definition packed 60 years of living into his tiny life. A fitting legacy left by someone who knew how to live life to the fullest.
From today October 13 2005 a law has been passed in the New South Wales Parliament, a law which it is hoped will prevent another tragedy from ever happening on our roads and leaving a family and community without a loved one.
This extract is from the NSW Parliament Hansard from Wednesday 12 October 2005 at 11:14am, when the Crimes Amendment (Road Accidents) Bill was read to the Parliament and a further amendment was made to rename the Bill the "CRIME AMENDMENT (ROAD ACCIDENT) (BRENDAN'S LAW) BILL, in honour of our Brendy.
NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard Full Day Transcript
New South Wales
Legislative Assembly
PARLIAMENTARY
DEBATES
(HANSARD)
FIFTY-THIRD PARLIAMENT
FIRST SESSION
WEDNESDAY 12 OCTOBER 2005
______
Authorised by the
Parliament of New South Wales
CRIMES AMENDMENT (ROAD ACCIDENTS) BILL
Second Reading Debate resumed from 21 September 2005.
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [11.14 a.m.]: The Coalition strongly supports this bill, the purpose of which is to increase the maximum penalty for people who fail to stop and render assistance after a road accident when grievous bodily harm or death has been occasioned to a party. The penalty will increase from 18 months to 10 years imprisonment. This follows the tragic case of Brendan Saul, who was killed while riding his bike at Dubbo on 8 January 2004 by a 15-year-old driver who fled the scene. On 4 May 2005 the former Premier, Bob Carr, in answer to a question without notice, gave an undertaking that there was a "need to strengthen penalties for people who fail to stop at accidents and the need for a tougher drug driving regime".
The bill deals with the former Premier's first undertaking but not the second, about being tougher on drug drivers. I trust that the Government will quickly take action to give effect to the former Premier's second undertaking, and that the new Premier will not have a change of heart on that. I know from speaking to Kevin Saul, Brendan's father, that these two elements are equally important. Of course, provisions dealing with the first undertaking are welcome, but the Government should deal with the second undertaking without delay. Each day that passes without the Government meeting the former Premier's undertaking about being tougher on drug drivers is another day when regrettably there is likely to be a recurrence of a crime that was one element of the facts in the tragedy of Brendan Saul's case, as there was no adequate deterrent in place. As I said, the former Premier recognised that, and I trust that the new Premier will follow through on it. At the end of her second reading speech on 21 September 2005 the Minister for Western Sydney said:
In a very real sense, this is Brendan's law.
Earlier that day, in answer to a question without notice the Attorney General said:
In a very real sense this law, for which I am sure the House will give bipartisan support, will be Brendan's law.
We would all like to see that, and I think one further step can be taken to achieve that. I sought Parliamentary Counsel's advice on this. I Also spoke, yesterday, to Kevin Saul, who would like to see this. I would like to amend the name of the bill to "Crimes Amendment (Brendan's Law) Bill". I understand that there is no problem with that; it will not in any way narrow the impact of the bill, which stands on its terms as a general application to the public of New South Wales, which of course is its purpose. We would be naming the bill in honour of someone's memory, rather than in any way limiting the bill to the facts surrounding Brendan's case.
Everyone has approached this bill with goodwill, and I am not trying to score points. To put it simply, while the Attorney General and the Minister for Western Sydney recognise that the bill will be called Brendan's law, the Act will not be called that.
This is a small but very important point for the Saul family. The bill will move to the background as the amendment is incorporated into the Crimes Act. The principal Crimes Act will be amended as proposed to change the law and will not in any way be limited in its application by its wording. But it would be nice for the Saul family to receive—as I have once or twice as the proposer of a private members' bill that passes through the Parliament—an embossed copy of the Act signed by the Clerk and by the Speaker and bearing the green seal of the Legislative Assembly and a green ribbon. I do not know what the upper House practice is but it may be the same. It is a magnificent looking document.
I know from speaking to Kevin Saul yesterday that if the bill can be named "Brendan's Law" and bear that title on the page, it would symbolically be very important. So many families of victims of crime that result in death do not want the death to be in vain; they want something positive to come out of it. For the Saul family this would be an official reflection by Parliament that this death—though a complete tragedy—has not been in vain. So, I foreshadow that amendment and table copies that have been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel. Otherwise I support the bill.
Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [11.21 a.m.]: I support the honourable member for Epping. His amendment is an acknowledgement that this bill is the result of the tragic death of Brendan Saul. The absence of a real deterrent in the Crimes Act was highlighted by this tragedy. The former Premier gave two undertakings. This bill pursues one undertaking, and we expect the second undertaking to be honoured. The honourable member for Epping has foreshadowed his amendment and given strong reasons for it. It acknowledges that Brendan's death, though a tragedy, will make a contribution to the criminal law in this State by providing a more adequate deterrent. This would give some comfort to the Saul family and be an acknowledgement of the debt this State owes Brendan; some good could come from this tragedy and be so acknowledged.
Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for the Arts) [11.23 a.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The Government is always vigilant to ensure that the most vulnerable people in the community have their interests protected. There is no question as to the vulnerability of those who are seriously injured in road collisions and who are vitally dependent on the assistance of others. When a driver leaves a scene of an accident, leaving in their wake a dead or badly injured person without attempting to render assistance, the fundamental code of a civilised society is breached. The law should not offer any incentive to drivers to fail to comply with their duty. It should not allow any advantage to accrue to those who evade their duty and who are perhaps criminally responsible for their actions. The measures in this bill are a clear and unambiguous statement of the seriousness with which the community views the dereliction of duty of drivers who flee accident scenes with callous disregard for seriously injured victims.
The drug-driving reforms announced by former Premier Carr and raised again in this debate by the honourable member for Epping are the responsibility of the Minister for Police and the Minister for Roads, but, as I understand it, the drafting of a bill is well advanced. I do not wish to bind my colleagues to these details, but I understand that that bill is to provide for random roadside drug testing for the presence of certain illicit drugs, compulsory drug testing of a driver involved in a fatal crash for drug analysis, and the offence of driving with any presence of a prescribed range of illicit drugs. The House will understand that the technology involved in the implementation of that bill is new and is evolving rapidly. Amendments concerning drug driving are of necessity difficult to draft and to implement. That is why the Government is of necessity taking a little time to prepare them.
I am pleased to support the Opposition's amendment to change the name of the bill in recognition of the tragic loss of Brendan Saul. However, I have a suggestion that we should follow a slightly different formulation to that which the honourable member for Epping has proposed. I understand he is amenable to the change to that formulation, which we will do in Committee. So far as I am aware, a person's name has never been used in the title of a bill in this manner, and therefore it is not something that Parliament should adopt lightly. On the other hand, it is true that this bill will incorporate a new provision in the Crimes Act and that Brendan's name will not appear in the Crimes Act. That is proper because the Crimes Act should be filled almost randomly with the names of individuals depending on how members of Parliament at any time respond to events in the community.
However, I have come to accept that, in the present context, the proposition by the honourable member is reasonable. As the House will know, I too have had a number of conversations with Kevin Saul, the most recent in Dubbo just several weeks ago. It is true that Parliament as a whole has extended its feelings of deep compassion to the Saul family for their tragedy. I commend the bill to the House on the assumption that we will spend a brief time in Committee settling the title of the bill.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [11.30 a.m.]: I move:
Page 2, clause 1, line 3. After "(Road Accidents)" insert "(Brendan's Law)".
I am grateful to the Attorney General for agreeing to this amendment and for suggesting a slight change to my original amendment, that is, to retain the words "Road Accidents". I believe the retention of those words is appropriate. I accept that this amendment will not appear in the principal Crimes Act as other amendments are incorporated into the Act. It is important that the Crimes Act applies and is seen to apply to everyone in New South Wales equally without fear or favour. As the Attorney General acknowledged in his response to my earlier comments, the tragedy that was the impetus for this bill is recognised by all honourable members. In this case it is appropriate to use Brendan Saul's Christian name as part of the name of the bill, but it is not a precedent that should be followed lightly in future. When the bill receives assent, I hope we have an opportunity to present an Act with this agreed title to Kevin Saul as a symbolic reminder that Brendan's death has not been totally in vain and to show that the law has been changed to deter others from being involved in the type of crime that led to Brendan's death. I am grateful for the Attorney General's support for and his advice on this amendment. I commend the amendment.
Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for the Arts) [11.33 a.m.]: I confirm that the honourable member for Epping and I have agreed, for the reasons we have already sufficiently explained, that the title of this bill should be amended by inserting the words "(Brendan's Law)" after the words "(Road Accidents)".
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [11.33 a.m.]: I indicate that I have used the Clerk's formal words.
Mr BOB DEBUS (Blue Mountains—Attorney General, Minister for the Environment, and Minister for the Arts) [11.33 a.m.]: Which, no doubt, are better than mine. We are in agreement.
Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [11.34 a.m.]: I thank all honourable members for their support on this issue. It has been a tragic time for the Saul family. This tragedy has brought together all members of the House to clarify the law so that in future other families will not have to suffer the same consequences as the Saul family. The tragedy has affected my whole community, which has stood behind this family, as has the Attorney General and the shadow Attorney General, the honourable member for Epping. I appreciate the bipartisanship that has been shown on this issue. It is hard for any family to tragically lose a child, but to have the name "Brendan's Law" inserted into the legislation is very important to the family and to others as well.
I thank the Parliament for agreeing to this amendment and I also thank the Attorney General and the former Minister for Juvenile Justice, the Hon. Diane Beamer, for their work and for supporting the efforts by the Saul family to bring some finality to this matter, although it is something the family will always have to live with. Hopefully, when this bill and a bill on drug testing that is to be introduced are passed, other families will not have to suffer the same consequences as the Saul family. I hope that the Saul family will then be able to concentrate on raising their other three wonderful young sons, while at the same time maintaining the memory of Brendan.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and report adopted.
Third reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.
This extract is from the NSW Parliament Hansard from Wednesday 21st September 2005 at 8:58pm, when the Hon Diane Beamer presented "Brendans Law" to the House.
CRIMES AMENDMENT (ROAD ACCIDENTS) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms DIANE BEAMER (Mulgoa—Minister for Western Sydney, Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Commerce) [8.58 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Recent tragic cases in New South Wales and other States have highlighted the difficulties and consequences that may follow when drivers leave the scene of a collision and do not stop to render assistance to victims. Brendan Saul, a 9 year-old-boy, died after being struck by a car at Dubbo in January last year. Under this bill, a new offence of failing to stop, with much heavier penalties, is introduced into the Crimes Act in recognition of society's abhorrence of those who injure their fellow citizens and then abandon them to die. When a driver leaves the scene of an accident, leaving in his or her wake a dead or badly injured person without attempting to render assistance, the fundamental code of civilised society is breached. Every driver on our roads needs to be aware that with the privilege of driving on our roads comes a fundamental responsibility to our fellow drivers.
The bill creates section 52AB of the Crimes Act, which makes new indictable offences. The new section makes it an offence for the driver of a vehicle that is involved in a collision causing death or grievous bodily harm to fail to stop and give assistance in circumstances in which he or she knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the vehicle has been involved in such a collision. When the collision causes death, the maximum penalty for failure to stop is imprisonment for 10 years. When the collision causes grievous bodily harm, the maximum penalty for failure to stop is imprisonment for seven years. The maximum penalties applying in these cases are severe. The maximum penalties are equivalent to those for offences of dangerous driving occasioning death and dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm in section 52A of the Crimes Act.
As a result no incidental advantage will accrue to a driver who flees and knows or ought reasonably to have known that death or grievous bodily harm was occasioned by the impact. The extension of the mental element to incorporate an objective element of "ought reasonably to have known" is warranted in the special circumstances of this offence. There should be no arguments about "actual knowledge" when objectively a person ought reasonably to have known that death or grievous bodily harm would result from a collision. The offences will apply to cases involving impacts occasioning death or grievous bodily harm. The definition of "impact" will be that used in section 52A of the Crimes Act. That definition is broad, extending to situations where vehicles run off the road or people are thrown from vehicles.
It will apply to any person who gets behind the wheel of a car—irrespective of age or whether they are licensed or unlicensed. The focus of the new offences is to ensure assistance for victims of serious vehicle impacts. Assistance may save a life, minimise injury, improve the prospect of recovery, alleviate suffering, and preserve the dignity of the injured or deceased. Failure to stop and assist in serious accidents should invite significant punishment. The requirement is to stop and give any assistance necessary that is in the driver's power to give. That is not to say that people must stop to perform first aid when they are not qualified to do so, or rescue someone from a burning car in dangerous circumstances. Obviously commonsense judgment will be required.
What is required is for the person to stop and take steps to assist directly or obtain expert help by contacting police or emergency services to ensure that professional expert assistance is obtained at the earliest opportunity. The action of drivers fleeing may thwart police in their ability to identify the drivers and collect necessary evidence. The presence of drivers at the scene ensures that the investigation is at no disadvantage. The creation of indictable offences of "failing to stop and assist" will also enliven a broader range of powers available to help a police investigation, such as, for example, the power to demand the name and address of a person when a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person may be able to assist in the investigation of an alleged indictable offence.
A person convicted of these offences will be liable to mandatory driver's licence disqualification. The offences will be relevant offences for the purpose of habitual traffic offender declarations and disqualification periods. There is provision to deal with the proposed section 52AB indictable offences summarily. or on indictment in the District Court, at the election of the prosecution.
The bill also amends section 70 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act. Section 70 will be similar to section 52AB in that it will also incorporate the objective test where the driver knew or ought reasonably to have known the result of the accident. However, the offence will apply to drivers of vehicles involved in collisions causing any physical injury. The definition of "impact" will also be that used in section 52AB.
Section 70 will continue to carry mandatory licence disqualification and be a relevant offence for habitual traffic offender purposes. An education campaign aimed at informing drivers of their responsibilities will be developed prior to the commencement of the legislation. With these new sanctions, motorists who flee the scene of an accident will face tougher penalties and a greater chance of being caught. The new offence strips away any incentive that may exist in the current penalty structure to flee or evade police.
Eighteen months ago on a sunny afternoon a small boy died in a terrible collision. Thanks to the long campaign of his father, this bill is a stepping-stone of legal reform recognising that sad death. In a very real sense, this is Brendan's law. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Daryl Maguire.
|