Burton Mark: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Burton Mark: Evidence Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:640;Page:10334] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Evidence Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was introduced on 18 June 2007 and referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. That committee reported the bill back to the House on Friday 22 June 2007. I start by thanking the committee for its work in consideration of the bill within what was an agreed tight time frame. 
This bill deals with an amendment to the Evidence Act 2006 which was passed last year but is not yet in force. The Evidence Act retains the common law rule— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. Would members leaving the Chamber please show some courtesy to the member addressing it. Courtesy is contagious and if we keep within the spirit of the Standing Orders it will be good for everybody. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Evidence Act retains the common law rule that a defendant’s statement is admissible against him or her but is not admissible against a co-defendant in the proceeding. However the Act does not include the exceptions to that rule. This bill captures those exceptions so that they will now be included in the Act. Two of the exceptions are known as the co-conspirators rule which allows for the statements of a defendant to be admissible against a co-conspirator or others involved in a joint criminal enterprise where the statements are made in furtherance of a common design. The prerequisites to this rule applying are that there is independent evidence of both the existence of a conspiracy or a joint criminal enterprise and the defendant being a member of that conspiracy or enterprise. This rule is preserved in a new section 12A which provides that nothing in this Act affects the rules of the common law relating to the admissibility of statements of co-conspirators or persons involved in joint criminal enterprises. The select committee made no amendments to the substance of the preservation of this common law rule. 
There is another common law exception to the rule—that is that the defendant’s statement is admissible against him or her but is not admissible against a co-defendant in the proceeding. That is where the co-accused by his or her words or conduct accepts the truth of the statement made by the defendant. The bill as introduced incorporated this common law exception into the Act by way of an amendment to section 27. The committee has amended the bill and moved this amendment to clause 12A with the co-conspirator’s rule. The amendment provides that nothing in the Act affects the common law rules relating to the admissibility of a defendant’s statement against a co-defendant in circumstances where the defendant’s statement is accepted by that co-defendant. This amendment will ensure that an amendment to section 27 will not have unintended consequences. 
This bill contains important amendments that have serious implications for criminal trials involving multiple accused and evidence obtained by interception of communications. Those cases generally involve major drug-dealing organised criminal enterprises or serious violent offending. These types of multi-defendant trials are costly lengthy follow from resource-intensive investigations and often have a high profile. It is therefore important that the common law is maintained. 
In commending this bill to the House I again thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its diligent work and the tight time frame inside which it has delivered this bill back to the House.