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:10345] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Evidence Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill deals with an amendment to the Evidence Act 2006 which as we have heard rather repeatedly this afternoon as the House has facilitated the progress of this Evidence Amendment Bill was passed last year but is not yet in force. 
The Evidence Act retains the common law rule that a defendant’s statement is admissible against him or her but it is not admissible against a co-defendant in that proceeding. However the Act does not include the exceptions to the rule. This bill therefore captures those exceptions so that they are included in the Act. These exceptions as we have discussed are included in the new section 12A which is inserted by clause 5 of the bill. This section provides that nothing in this Act affects certain common law rules. 
The first of these is known as the co-conspirators rule. Section 12A preserves the rules of the common law relating to the admissibility of statements made by co-conspirators or by persons involved in joint criminal enterprises. At common law if certain prerequisites are met then the acts or words of a defendant are admissible against co-conspirators or others involved in a joint criminal enterprise where the acts or words are done in furtherance of a common design. The prerequisites are that there is independent evidence of the existence of a conspiracy or a joint criminal enterprise and that the defendant’s participation in the conspiracy or joint criminal enterprise is established. The other common law rule section 12A preserves is that relating to the admissibility of a defendant’s statement made against a co-defendant in circumstances where the defendant’s statement is accepted by that co-defendant. 
These amendments are required in order to retain the current law once the Evidence Act comes into force; they do not change the current law. Not retaining the current law would have serious implications as I indicated during the second reading. It would have serious implications for criminal trials that involved multiple accused and evidence obtained particularly by the interception of communications. As I have indicated and as I think members fully appreciate these cases generally involve the likes of major drug dealing organised criminal enterprise and/or serious violent offending. 
Clearly these types of trials with multiple defendants are costly they are lengthy they follow resource-intensive investigations and they often have a high community profile. They are not the sorts of cases that any member would want to see put at risk. Therefore members have generally cooperated to ensure the rapid progress of the legislation through this House. 
Simon Power 
: “Generally”! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am sorry; members have cooperated completely. The member is absolutely correct. If these amendments are not made then those people accused of serious crimes could indeed in a worst-case scenario be discharged or the charges would have to be dropped. That is not a situation that members would want to see happen. 
I close by acknowledging again the cooperation we have had from members of the House and the diligent work of members of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I thank them for it. It is refreshing and I have to say enjoyable to have participated in a cooperative and collaborative process in order to see the House achieve a small but important piece of work that we all agree is necessary.