Page 3431 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are provisions that deal with whether original sentencing should be reinstated where a person has promised cooperation with the authorities, for example, with the prosecution of other offenders in similar circumstances, and that cooperation is not forthcoming. I believe that the codification of those provisions is a very appropriate one.
There is also a very important provision dealing with the necessity for the court clearly to explain a sentence to an offender. All too often people will stand in our courts and be sentenced and there will be confusion. There will be trauma on the part of the person who is being sentenced, and that person simply will not understand what is going on. It is extremely important, I think, that we do put an onus on our bench clearly to explain, if possible in non-technical language, what is happening to individuals who appear before the courts.
I recall one particular circumstance when I appeared in the Magistrates Court in the ACT for some young people who had been charged with under-age drinking. His Worship handed down a non-custodial sentence. He imposed, I think, a bond of some kind, and he said words to this effect: "I fine you a certain sum of money, in default three days in an institution of detention for young people". The young person standing behind me listening to this sentence almost fainted because she thought she was being sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a juvenile detention centre. That is the way the language of the courts is couched. It was, of course, a fine, and in default of payment of the fine a period of detention. That is the case for adults and children alike. But that was not clear to that person and the trauma was very evident. I have no doubt that she and the other codefendants in that case heard very little else of what the magistrate said. So, explaining in clear terms is very helpful. In fact I have an amendment coming forward which would go one step further and provide that that particular privilege, if you like, to the defendant should be extended to receiving a written version of the sentence or the remarks by a judge.
The Bill also deals with the question of pre-sentence reports. They are very important and I think that the provisions here, for the most part, are worthy of being supported. I note briefly, Mr Deputy Speaker, that one of the recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission dealt with the question of truth in sentencing. I quote very briefly from the summary of that report. It said:
Another major theme of the report is the need to enhance 'truth in sentencing'. Under the present system, a substantial sentence of imprisonment may be imposed by the court, yet it is generally understood that the offender will be released on parole long before the period is served. Remissions further reduce this period. This had led to public disquiet and the procedure having been judicially described as an 'elaborate charade'.
I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we can argue on another day the question of whether the ACT should have a truth in sentencing policy. Clearly, the truth in sentencing policy legislation which is applied in the New South Wales prison system already applies to the ACT, to the extent that all of our prisoners serve their terms of imprisonment in the New South Wales gaol system; but we may have to visit again the question of truth in sentencing within our own sentencing policy. That is not a debate for today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .