❓ Questioning the Attorney General on the abolition of preliminary hearings, citing concerns about court delays and the experiences of other states. The Attorney General defends the decision based on a Law Reform Commission report and perceived time savings.
AnsweredQoN 1239Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) I refer to comments made by the Attorney General reported in the
West Australian
on 30 May 2006 (page 29) in reference to a court case that was abandoned after 18 months preparation only minutes into the case. It was asserted that a preliminary hearing could have prevented this, but the Attorney General responded that preliminary hearings were “a complete and utter waste of the court’s time and resources”. Will the Attorney General advise, if the system of preliminary hearings is so ‘useless’ and ‘wasteful’, why New South Wales and Victoria continue to have them with no apparent signs of abandoning them?
(2) The Attorney General has told the House that the abolition of preliminary hearings would mean that matters would come to trial much more quickly, and I ask -
(a) has this occurred; and
(b) will the Attorney General supply before and after data to substantiate this claim?
(3) In the twelve month period before the abolition of preliminary hearings, how many cases were abandoned on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court?
(4) What is the basis for the Attorney General’s refusal to consider reinstating preliminary hearings, and, in that analysis, has the Attorney General considered -
(a) the distress experienced by court case participants in the long wait before matters come to court; and
(b) that, in many cases, this could have been prevented by a preliminary hearing?
West Australian
on 30 May 2006 (page 29) in reference to a court case that was abandoned after 18 months preparation only minutes into the case. It was asserted that a preliminary hearing could have prevented this, but the Attorney General responded that preliminary hearings were “a complete and utter waste of the court’s time and resources”. Will the Attorney General advise, if the system of preliminary hearings is so ‘useless’ and ‘wasteful’, why New South Wales and Victoria continue to have them with no apparent signs of abandoning them?
(2) The Attorney General has told the House that the abolition of preliminary hearings would mean that matters would come to trial much more quickly, and I ask -
(a) has this occurred; and
(b) will the Attorney General supply before and after data to substantiate this claim?
(3) In the twelve month period before the abolition of preliminary hearings, how many cases were abandoned on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court?
(4) What is the basis for the Attorney General’s refusal to consider reinstating preliminary hearings, and, in that analysis, has the Attorney General considered -
(a) the distress experienced by court case participants in the long wait before matters come to court; and
(b) that, in many cases, this could have been prevented by a preliminary hearing?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
1 August 2006
Response time
47 days
(b) will the Attorney General supply before and after data to substantiate this claim?
(b) that, in many cases, this could have been prevented by a preliminary hearing?
Preliminary hearings in NSW and Victoria were taken into account by the WA Law Reform Commission in its Review of the Criminal and Civil Justice System in Western Australia (eg, Volume 2 of the WALRC Consultation Drafts (Project 92, June 1999) at pages 855-857 and 860-862). On the basis of its deliberations, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were redundant and that of those hearings that proceeded the number of defendants discharged was negligible, and recommended that, in this State, preliminary hearings should be abolished and their functions achieved by other initiatives. (2) (a) The WALRC concluded not only that preliminary hearings delayed bringing defendants to trial but also that many months are added to the period between the charge and committal if defendants elected to have a preliminary hearing. The Courts do not have statistical data on whether the abolition of preliminary hearings has resulted in criminal cases coming to trial more quickly than prior to the abolition of those hearings on 27 September 2002. However, the comments I have received from those involved in criminal proceedings and trial, clearly indicates that, as compared to the past, the abolition of preliminary hearings has clearly reduced the period of time between the charge and committal to the District or Supreme Court. In nearly all circumstances the empirical basis supporting those comments is clear. If a process, such as a preliminary hearing, is abolished, then the period between the charge and the criminal trial will obviously be reduced by the time previously taken to conduct the preliminary hearing. (b) As indicated above, the Courts do not have data on this precise issue. One reason is that, in this context, general statistics of court delays are unhelpful because numerous other factors, the number of persons charged, trial length, availability of judicial officers, all impact on those statistics. (3) Preliminary hearings were abolished on 27 September 2002. However, cases in which preliminary hearings had been sought remained listed for preliminary hearings. Therefore, in fact, preliminary hearings continued until approximately 31 December 2002. Between 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, 222 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, 220 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. The time required to ascertain the precise basis and reasons for the discontinuance of these 442 prosecutions and to determine which prosecutions were discontinued "on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court" would involve commitment of a large amount time, financial and other resources by the Courts and the DPP. I am not prepared to request those agencies to commit those resources to this question (4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
(2) (a) The WALRC concluded not only that preliminary hearings delayed bringing defendants to trial but also that many months are added to the period between the charge and committal if defendants elected to have a preliminary hearing. The Courts do not have statistical data on whether the abolition of preliminary hearings has resulted in criminal cases coming to trial more quickly than prior to the abolition of those hearings on 27 September 2002. However, the comments I have received from those involved in criminal proceedings and trial, clearly indicates that, as compared to the past, the abolition of preliminary hearings has clearly reduced the period of time between the charge and committal to the District or Supreme Court. In nearly all circumstances the empirical basis supporting those comments is clear. If a process, such as a preliminary hearing, is abolished, then the period between the charge and the criminal trial will obviously be reduced by the time previously taken to conduct the preliminary hearing. (b) As indicated above, the Courts do not have data on this precise issue. One reason is that, in this context, general statistics of court delays are unhelpful because numerous other factors, the number of persons charged, trial length, availability of judicial officers, all impact on those statistics. (3) Preliminary hearings were abolished on 27 September 2002. However, cases in which preliminary hearings had been sought remained listed for preliminary hearings. Therefore, in fact, preliminary hearings continued until approximately 31 December 2002. Between 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, 222 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, 220 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. The time required to ascertain the precise basis and reasons for the discontinuance of these 442 prosecutions and to determine which prosecutions were discontinued "on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court" would involve commitment of a large amount time, financial and other resources by the Courts and the DPP. I am not prepared to request those agencies to commit those resources to this question (4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
In nearly all circumstances the empirical basis supporting those comments is clear. If a process, such as a preliminary hearing, is abolished, then the period between the charge and the criminal trial will obviously be reduced by the time previously taken to conduct the preliminary hearing. (b) As indicated above, the Courts do not have data on this precise issue. One reason is that, in this context, general statistics of court delays are unhelpful because numerous other factors, the number of persons charged, trial length, availability of judicial officers, all impact on those statistics. (3) Preliminary hearings were abolished on 27 September 2002. However, cases in which preliminary hearings had been sought remained listed for preliminary hearings. Therefore, in fact, preliminary hearings continued until approximately 31 December 2002. Between 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, 222 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, 220 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. The time required to ascertain the precise basis and reasons for the discontinuance of these 442 prosecutions and to determine which prosecutions were discontinued "on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court" would involve commitment of a large amount time, financial and other resources by the Courts and the DPP. I am not prepared to request those agencies to commit those resources to this question (4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
(b) As indicated above, the Courts do not have data on this precise issue. One reason is that, in this context, general statistics of court delays are unhelpful because numerous other factors, the number of persons charged, trial length, availability of judicial officers, all impact on those statistics. (3) Preliminary hearings were abolished on 27 September 2002. However, cases in which preliminary hearings had been sought remained listed for preliminary hearings. Therefore, in fact, preliminary hearings continued until approximately 31 December 2002. Between 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, 222 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, 220 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. The time required to ascertain the precise basis and reasons for the discontinuance of these 442 prosecutions and to determine which prosecutions were discontinued "on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court" would involve commitment of a large amount time, financial and other resources by the Courts and the DPP. I am not prepared to request those agencies to commit those resources to this question (4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
(3) Preliminary hearings were abolished on 27 September 2002. However, cases in which preliminary hearings had been sought remained listed for preliminary hearings. Therefore, in fact, preliminary hearings continued until approximately 31 December 2002. Between 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, 222 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, 220 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. The time required to ascertain the precise basis and reasons for the discontinuance of these 442 prosecutions and to determine which prosecutions were discontinued "on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court" would involve commitment of a large amount time, financial and other resources by the Courts and the DPP. I am not prepared to request those agencies to commit those resources to this question (4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
The time required to ascertain the precise basis and reasons for the discontinuance of these 442 prosecutions and to determine which prosecutions were discontinued "on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court" would involve commitment of a large amount time, financial and other resources by the Courts and the DPP. I am not prepared to request those agencies to commit those resources to this question (4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
(4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
(b) that, in many cases, this could have been prevented by a preliminary hearing?
Preliminary hearings in NSW and Victoria were taken into account by the WA Law Reform Commission in its Review of the Criminal and Civil Justice System in Western Australia (eg, Volume 2 of the WALRC Consultation Drafts (Project 92, June 1999) at pages 855-857 and 860-862). On the basis of its deliberations, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were redundant and that of those hearings that proceeded the number of defendants discharged was negligible, and recommended that, in this State, preliminary hearings should be abolished and their functions achieved by other initiatives. (2) (a) The WALRC concluded not only that preliminary hearings delayed bringing defendants to trial but also that many months are added to the period between the charge and committal if defendants elected to have a preliminary hearing. The Courts do not have statistical data on whether the abolition of preliminary hearings has resulted in criminal cases coming to trial more quickly than prior to the abolition of those hearings on 27 September 2002. However, the comments I have received from those involved in criminal proceedings and trial, clearly indicates that, as compared to the past, the abolition of preliminary hearings has clearly reduced the period of time between the charge and committal to the District or Supreme Court. In nearly all circumstances the empirical basis supporting those comments is clear. If a process, such as a preliminary hearing, is abolished, then the period between the charge and the criminal trial will obviously be reduced by the time previously taken to conduct the preliminary hearing. (b) As indicated above, the Courts do not have data on this precise issue. One reason is that, in this context, general statistics of court delays are unhelpful because numerous other factors, the number of persons charged, trial length, availability of judicial officers, all impact on those statistics. (3) Preliminary hearings were abolished on 27 September 2002. However, cases in which preliminary hearings had been sought remained listed for preliminary hearings. Therefore, in fact, preliminary hearings continued until approximately 31 December 2002. Between 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, 222 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, 220 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. The time required to ascertain the precise basis and reasons for the discontinuance of these 442 prosecutions and to determine which prosecutions were discontinued "on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court" would involve commitment of a large amount time, financial and other resources by the Courts and the DPP. I am not prepared to request those agencies to commit those resources to this question (4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
(2) (a) The WALRC concluded not only that preliminary hearings delayed bringing defendants to trial but also that many months are added to the period between the charge and committal if defendants elected to have a preliminary hearing. The Courts do not have statistical data on whether the abolition of preliminary hearings has resulted in criminal cases coming to trial more quickly than prior to the abolition of those hearings on 27 September 2002. However, the comments I have received from those involved in criminal proceedings and trial, clearly indicates that, as compared to the past, the abolition of preliminary hearings has clearly reduced the period of time between the charge and committal to the District or Supreme Court. In nearly all circumstances the empirical basis supporting those comments is clear. If a process, such as a preliminary hearing, is abolished, then the period between the charge and the criminal trial will obviously be reduced by the time previously taken to conduct the preliminary hearing. (b) As indicated above, the Courts do not have data on this precise issue. One reason is that, in this context, general statistics of court delays are unhelpful because numerous other factors, the number of persons charged, trial length, availability of judicial officers, all impact on those statistics. (3) Preliminary hearings were abolished on 27 September 2002. However, cases in which preliminary hearings had been sought remained listed for preliminary hearings. Therefore, in fact, preliminary hearings continued until approximately 31 December 2002. Between 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, 222 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, 220 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. The time required to ascertain the precise basis and reasons for the discontinuance of these 442 prosecutions and to determine which prosecutions were discontinued "on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court" would involve commitment of a large amount time, financial and other resources by the Courts and the DPP. I am not prepared to request those agencies to commit those resources to this question (4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
In nearly all circumstances the empirical basis supporting those comments is clear. If a process, such as a preliminary hearing, is abolished, then the period between the charge and the criminal trial will obviously be reduced by the time previously taken to conduct the preliminary hearing. (b) As indicated above, the Courts do not have data on this precise issue. One reason is that, in this context, general statistics of court delays are unhelpful because numerous other factors, the number of persons charged, trial length, availability of judicial officers, all impact on those statistics. (3) Preliminary hearings were abolished on 27 September 2002. However, cases in which preliminary hearings had been sought remained listed for preliminary hearings. Therefore, in fact, preliminary hearings continued until approximately 31 December 2002. Between 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, 222 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, 220 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. The time required to ascertain the precise basis and reasons for the discontinuance of these 442 prosecutions and to determine which prosecutions were discontinued "on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court" would involve commitment of a large amount time, financial and other resources by the Courts and the DPP. I am not prepared to request those agencies to commit those resources to this question (4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
(b) As indicated above, the Courts do not have data on this precise issue. One reason is that, in this context, general statistics of court delays are unhelpful because numerous other factors, the number of persons charged, trial length, availability of judicial officers, all impact on those statistics. (3) Preliminary hearings were abolished on 27 September 2002. However, cases in which preliminary hearings had been sought remained listed for preliminary hearings. Therefore, in fact, preliminary hearings continued until approximately 31 December 2002. Between 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, 222 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, 220 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. The time required to ascertain the precise basis and reasons for the discontinuance of these 442 prosecutions and to determine which prosecutions were discontinued "on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court" would involve commitment of a large amount time, financial and other resources by the Courts and the DPP. I am not prepared to request those agencies to commit those resources to this question (4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
(3) Preliminary hearings were abolished on 27 September 2002. However, cases in which preliminary hearings had been sought remained listed for preliminary hearings. Therefore, in fact, preliminary hearings continued until approximately 31 December 2002. Between 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, 222 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003, 220 prosecutions were discontinued by the DPP. The time required to ascertain the precise basis and reasons for the discontinuance of these 442 prosecutions and to determine which prosecutions were discontinued "on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court" would involve commitment of a large amount time, financial and other resources by the Courts and the DPP. I am not prepared to request those agencies to commit those resources to this question (4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
The time required to ascertain the precise basis and reasons for the discontinuance of these 442 prosecutions and to determine which prosecutions were discontinued "on the grounds of insufficient evidence after coming to court" would involve commitment of a large amount time, financial and other resources by the Courts and the DPP. I am not prepared to request those agencies to commit those resources to this question (4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
(4)(a)&(b) The decision not to reinstate the preliminary hearings is based on several factors. For example, the WALRC concluded that preliminary hearings were only sought in 10% of cases. Also, where they were requested, only half of the cases listed for preliminary hearing proceeded and, in hearings which proceeded, the number of defendants discharged after the hearing was negligible. This is a factual basis supporting the decision not to reinstate preliminary hearings. Also, rather than abolition of preliminary hearings contributing to delays in obtaining a criminal trial, abolition has, indicated above, reduced that delay in cases where there would have previously been a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the decision not to reinstate these hearings has taken into account "the distress experienced" by those involved in criminal proceedings and recognises that abolition of these proceedings is one factor that assists to alleviate that distress.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.