The ACT Government this afternoon rejected the Canberra Liberals’ call to reform the Territory’s bail laws (Bail Act 1992), arguing it mischaracterised the bail system and violated human rights.

Jeremy Hanson’s motion, made in August, proposed removing the presumption that people accused of assaulting frontline community service providers (police, ambulance, emergency workers) automatically get bail – a change to the laws Mr Hanson first asked for in 2012.

“There will no longer be a ‘get out of jail free’ card,” Mr Hanson said in August.

Mr Hanson, Shadow Minister for Police, introduced his bill on behalf of the Australian Federal Police Association (AFPA).

In recent months, the AFPA noted, four ACT Policing officers were hospitalised due to assaults. In July, Thomas Matthews allegedly tried to run over three police officers; Matthews was on bail for allegedly attacking police officers in May. Last month, in Turner, a man with an outstanding warrant for breaking bail conditions rammed a police car; a police officer was taken to hospital with minor injuries.

Mr Hanson explained his reform was designed to keep frontline community workers safe.

“The message [this legislation] sends,” Mr Hanson said today, “is that we’ve got your back if you’re a police officer, you’re an ambo, you’re a firie. And if you get assaulted, we see that as unacceptable.”

Mr Hanson said his proposal did not completely remove the ability to be granted bail, and it did not go so far as to place the offence in the category where there was presumption against bail (such as murder or serious drugs charges). Instead, it would join grievous bodily harm, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and sexual assaults as offences that had no presumption of bail. Magistrates and judges would decide each case on its merits.

“We’ve got a good piece of legislation that I think fixes up an anomaly in our laws that will go some way to making sure that [fewer] police are assaulted on the job. That’s a good reform; it’s a simple reform.”

Rattenbury: Bill will erode the integrity of the justice system

Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury said he could not in good conscience support Mr Hanson’s bill.

“This Bill is unlikely to achieve its goals of promoting safety, and is likely to cause significant harm to welfare of individuals, to erode the integrity of the justice system, and to marginalise some of the most vulnerable members of our community.”

First, the proposed reform was based on a mischaracterisation of the operation and purpose of the current bail system; bail was not automatically granted, and presumption of bail did not equal entitlement to bail.

Second, assault captured a broad scope of behaviour, from striking to spitting; Mr Hanson’s bill, Mr Rattenbury surmised, would place all in the same very serious category.

Third, it was inconsistent with the existing bail framework and other types of offences where the presumption for bail did not apply.

Fourth, there was no evidence that those charged with assaulting frontline community service providers had a greater risk of reoffending or failing to appear in court such to justify the removal of the presumption for bail. Offenders often behaved instinctively, rather than with full consideration.

Fifth, the proposed amendments would unreasonably restrict the human rights of a person charged with assault, particularly the rights to liberty and to equality under the law. Under presumption of innocence, the accused had a right to bail.

Sixth, the reform could pave the way for miscarriages of justice, including by incentivising early guilty pleas to avoid being remanded in custody.

“The bail system is designed to protect an accused’s right to a fair trial and for the protection of the community,” Mr Rattenbury said. “It is not a system of punishment.”

Seventh, it would exacerbate disadvantages in the criminal justice framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and the mentally ill, who had higher levels of contact with frontline community service providers.

“You cannot be in favour of reducing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the justice system while at the same time seeking to exacerbate it,” Mr Rattenbury said.

Mr Hanson responded: “To make this terrible assumption that Indigenous people are more likely to assault police is outrageous.”

Indigenous people were not more likely to assault police officers or paramedics, Mr Rattenbury said; rather, according to a 2020 Queensland report, they were more likely to be charged with assault, and less likely to be granted bail than non-Indigenous people.

Liberals and police disappointed

Earlier that day, Mr Hanson called the lack of government support “bitterly disappointing” and promised the Liberals would continue to fight for this reform.

“It’s very clear that [the government] are not supporting our police and other frontline workers. The police are calling for this, and they should and, I think, will, feel very let down.”

“It’s almost like we have no consideration; we’re not important,” said former police officer Jason Taylor, who left the force with PTSD after he was assaulted last year.

“I can tell you, from my 14 years serving with ACT Policing, I often felt that way. No support from this government, and they’ve just proven it again.”

“Disappointed and angry”, Mr Taylor said he saw this bill as “the beginning of a vast array of reform” for first responders.

“It’s not good enough,” Mr Taylor said. “This government has failed to back its first responders at the first reform that’s needed, so quite frankly, this government cannot be trusted to introduce and look at the broader and much more involved reform that’s necessary. … I have no faith in them.”

Mr Taylor said he did not want any of his former colleagues to go through what he had experienced over the last two years.

“Let’s be honest. There are some people and some offences that warrant going to jail for, and I think we’re starting to lose sight of that. It’s time for the scales of justice to start to turn back in favour of the victims. The rejection of a bill such as this doesn’t recognise that police can be victims, just completely ignores them.”

AFPA: Government puts offenders before police officers

The AFPA questioned the Attorney-General’s reasoning for not supporting the Canberra Liberals’ bill, and expected supporting evidence to be made available, president Alex Caruana said.

“The Attorney-General … is putting the rights of recidivists and dangerous offenders before those police officers that protect Canberrans.”

The Liberals’ bill, Mr Caruana said earlier today, would have “created a fair playing field for the judiciary” to impose strong penalties on those who harmed police officers. “It doesn’t imply that people are going to be denied bail from the get-go.”

“As it stands right now,” Mr Caruana said in a press release, “Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutors have to fight … [with one hand tied behind their back] … to remand someone who assaults a first responder.

“We believe that the alleged offender and their legal representatives should have to prove why they deserve bail. Bail for serious and violent offences such as assaulting a first responder should be a privilege, not a right and near certainty.”

Earlier today, Mr Caruana said: “We’re not talking about average Joe citizens that do minor crimes. We’re talking about recidivist offenders that commit violent crimes or are deemed dangerous to society, dangerous to Canberrans.

“If you have the disrespect to attack or assault a police officer, a paramedic, or a first responder, it is very clear that we need … to say this is not acceptable, the Canberra community does not accept this.”

Get all the latest Canberra news, sport, entertainment, lifestyle, competitions and more delivered straight to your inbox with the Canberra Daily Daily Newsletter. Sign up here.