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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 606 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

For murder offences, we have the same imprisonment rate-100 per cent. For aggravated robbery, such as armed robbery, 67 per cent of people who appeared before our Supreme Court were sentenced to imprisonment, and in New South Wales 87 per cent were. For serious assaults, the rate of incarceration was 54 per cent in both jurisdictions.

For burglary and breaking and entering, however, 30 per cent of ACT offenders who appeared before our Supreme Court were imprisoned; in New South Wales the figure was 75 per cent. For sexual and related offences, 30 per cent of people who appeared before the ACT Supreme Court were sentenced to imprisonment, and in New South Wales the figure was 72 per cent. I have seen quite a few letters to the editor in relation to that.

For the offence of supply and possession of drugs, 44 per cent of convicted ACT offenders were imprisoned, and in New South Wales the figure was 62 per cent. In New South Wales in recent times-and I note they have a Labor government there-they have had sentencing guidelines. To try to make that as simple as possible, basically the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal uses sentencing guidelines for serious criminal matters.

I think, now that the ACT is getting its own court of appeal, it provides us with a great window of opportunity to apply similar sentencing guidelines. Sentencing guidelines would be applied for crimes commonly committed in the ACT. What a sentencing guideline gives is a sentencing scale. Sentences start at an advised minimum point for custodial and other sentences that cannot be overlooked by a presiding judge, except in cases where there are some very strong mitigating or unique factors.

There is still discretion there. If a sentencing judge does impose an inappropriate sentence that differs from the guidelines, that is something that the Crown can then appeal against. Indeed, it would be the basis on which a defence would appeal, if the judge went too far.

What that would mean is that, if the normal tariff for a certain type of serious offence was, say, between four and six years imprisonment, then one could expect that the sentence would be within that range, unless there were some exceptional circumstances. Were a court, for example, to impose, say, a six-month imprisonment, or indeed give a suspended sentence or a bond, the DPP could appeal on the basis that the sentence was excessively lenient. Similarly, if a court were to impose a sentence of 10 years imprisonment, the defence could appeal that as being manifestly excessive.

Sentencing guidelines would also assist in ensuring greater consistency in sentencing within our own ACT court structure. We are not Robinson Crusoes: there is criticism in every jurisdiction that, depending on which judge you get, you are going to get a different sentence or a different result. Guidelines are very, very important for consistency too. Inconsistencies are just a quirk of human nature: judges and magistrates are all human. Every one has a different view, but sentencing guidelines are of assistance to everyone involved in the process.

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