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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (9 May) . . Page.. 1265 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

These are the sorts of things that we need a handle on. Why is it that our Magistrates Court is not using periodic detention nearly as much as it did even 12 months ago? A decline of 28 per cent in one year is a very significant decline in periodic detention. There is also a continuing decline in the use of community service orders. A significant number of offenders are simply not turning up for periodic detention. In that same 12-month period, 23 offenders had their sentences extended because they did not bother to turn up for a particular weekend. Forty-six offenders had their sentences extended by two periods for non-attendance, a more serious breach of their periodic detention order. On 117 occasions leave of absence was granted, when the total number of offenders was only 58.

There are some genuine issues to be pursued in relation to the granting of periodic detention orders, the use of alternative sentencing options by our courts and the way in which periodic detention is currently being managed, particularly in light of non-attendance by offenders, though I do note that they are generally chased up. I raise these issues as a serious concern and suggest to the Attorney that these are issues that might usefully be pursued. I would be interested in hearing from the Attorney whether or not he would share those concerns about the need for us to know exactly how sentencing is proceeding in our Magistrates Court and whether or not he or his department has given some thought to inquiring into these matters.

I have just received a note from my staff that suggests that my quoting of the 28 per cent decline this year as against last year might not be correct. It is a 28 per cent decline perhaps since the Periodic Detention Centre first operated and it is not a year-to-year figure. I apologise if I have made a mistake.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (12.03), in reply: Mr Speaker, I thank the opposition for its support for this bill. I think it is an important bill to ensure that the calculation of periods of service at the Periodic Detention Centre reflects, in effect, the commitment of a person to serve out their period of periodic detention. The amendments being proposed today by the government are designed to reflect the reality that some flexibility is needed in arrangements. I think Mr Stanhope summarised well what the legislation is designed to do, and I do not disagree with anything he had to say in that respect.

Mr Stanhope raised other questions more broadly about periodic detention and community service orders in the ACT. I am quite happy to take up those issues as he raised them. First of all, I might make a comment about the use of particular sentencing options and how they are being used by the courts at the moment. It is true to say that our courts fairly jealously guard unto themselves the policies which are used for the sentencing of people convicted of crimes in the ACT.

I have suggested on occasions that there should be a broader community debate about sentencing and about how courts exercise the discretion to sentence to a period of imprisonment or to use another penalty. The uniform reaction of the bench is that these are matters which are solely for the bench and should not be matters for political debate. Therefore I suggest that, although it would be healthy to have perhaps some further discussion about the principles that members of our benches use when sentencing people, it would not be likely to be one that members of the bench would engage in, at least without some jealous guarding of their discretions in that respect.

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