Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3889 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Whitecross is talking rot. The judges are supposed to take into account a range of matters. They are permitted to take into account matters up to a certain point. But they are not permitted to take into account matters which the legislation specifically excludes them from taking into account, and prevalence is one such matter.

Mr Whitecross: What I am saying is that, taking account of the matters allowed under the legislation, they do not have to give suspended sentences if they do not want to.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, that is not the case. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to explain it to Mr Whitecross in words of one syllable or less.

Mr Whitecross: I understand perfectly well. You want to run a law and order campaign in the next election.

MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Deputy Speaker, if I could just get a word in edgeways - - -

Mr Whitecross: It is perfectly simple. You want to beat the law and order drum. There is nothing else to it.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Humphries has the floor.

MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Judges are supposed to sentence on certain principles. They would look at a number of factors, including the record of the person being sentenced. They would look at the other factors basically referred to in section 429A of the Crimes Act. They would look at all those matters. Do you understand that so far, Mr Whitecross?

Having done that, they would be expected to pass sentence based on principles consistent with other people who are in the same position, other people with the same sorts of records and sentenced for the same sorts of offences. It may be that that would lead them to consider that a suspended sentence was appropriate. But there is one factor that might lead them to believe that that is not appropriate, that is, the fact that a certain sort of offence was prevalent. What that might mean is that a year ago it would not have been appropriate to sentence somebody to a gaol term for a certain sort of offence, such as armed robbery, but that the common currency that they were using would require a suspended sentence.

Mr Whitecross: If I am held up in a service station, how serious the offence is depends on how many other people have done it? You are a joke.

MR HUMPHRIES: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not a question of simply addressing the person's individual case. It is a question of addressing the wider issue of the prevalence of that offence in the community. If you cannot see that, I pity what kind of government is going to lead us after the next election, should you be elected to office. That is all I can say.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .