Page 3430 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
before it for that crime, the deterrent effect that that sentence will have on any person, particularly on other people who might be potential offenders against that particular provision. But surely, by doing so, they are also taking into account the prevalence of the offence.
We have to interpret these proposed new sections consistently. We would have to say, therefore, that when judges are interpreting those words they will try to find some difference between the two sets of words, particularly since they are distinguished by being in different sections. They are also couched in different terms and therefore some different meaning must be intended. I think it is very hard to interpret them in such a way that there is no element of overlap, and, quite clearly, there is in the minds of judges and magistrates in this Territory an element of overlap between those two things.
To prove that proposition I want to refer to comments by His Honour Justice John Gallop in the Supreme Court last year when he talked at some length about the impact that sentencing policy has on potential offenders in our system. He was quoted in the Canberra Times of 12 April last year when he referred to the "ridiculous leniency" of the Federal Court in reducing a sentence for armed robbery that year. He criticised that ridiculous leniency and suggested that it has some impact on the occurrence or the prevalence of that offence. He went on to say:
All the courts can do to protect the public and particularly places like supermarkets, service stations and other easy marks, TAB agencies, post offices, things like that ... is to impose gaol sentences of substantial severity to mark the community's disgust and condemnation ...
He went on to say that such sentences would hopefully deter people who were minded to commit such offences, whether they were drug addicted or not. It is also worth noting that in the same report in the Canberra Times Justice Higgins was reported as saying that the Canberra community is demanding that the courts take a hard line with offences such as burglary and theft.
Returning to what Justice Gallop had to say, was Justice Gallop taking into account, using the language of this Bill, the deterrent effect that any sentence or order under consideration may have on any person when he made those comments about the Federal Court? Clearly he was. Was he also taking into account the prevalence of the offence? Without putting words into the judge's mouth, I think it is fair to say that he was doing that too. I think that in circumstances of this kind, where a particular kind of offence occurs in large numbers in the Territory over a particular period, there will be both issues of prevalence and issues of impact on other potential offenders which need to be taken into account by the court. It is my contention, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we should delete paragraph (e) of proposed new section 429B, and that particular argument is supported by the Law Society of the ACT.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are other important issues that this Bill gives rise to. I might say that the Bill as a whole, I think, adopts a very laudable approach towards the need to provide consistent policy with respect to sentencing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .