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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3323 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

must decide between imposing a custodial sentence and imposing a non-custodial sentence.

The responses will then be analysed with a view to identifying those factors or circumstances which can act as a practical limitation on the choice of sentencing options, and determining whether there are gaps in the range of options currently available. I want to take the opportunity to thank the magistrates for their participation in the survey project.

The sentencing review has also been asked to examine whether the range of programs and options currently available to offenders with special needs is appropriate for those offenders. These offenders include the aged, the disabled, women, people with a first language other than English, indigenous people, young people, and people with personality disorders, mental illness, or substance abuse problems.

Finally, the review has been asked to advise on possible legislative reforms, including the possible consolidation of existing provisions across several enactments into a sentencing act. At this point, I want to thank the members of the sentencing review committee for their contribution to the work of the review, which has been invaluable.

Part 1 of the paper explains the review's terms of reference, and part 2 briefly outlines the current legislative framework for sentencing in the ACT, and the way the legislative purposes are given effect in practice.

Part 3 outlines the range of non-custodial sentencing options available, and examines how well adapted these options are to achieving the purposes of sentencing. It discusses ways of measuring the success of non-custodial sentencing options and explains the sentencing survey being conducted in the ACT Magistrates Court. This part of the paper invites comments on whether the range of non-custodial sentencing options can be expanded, and whether existing options could be used more effectively to deal with the causes of offending behaviour.

Part 4 examines victim/offender conferencing models and other restorative justice mechanisms, including reparation orders and victim impact statements. Comments were sought on whether conferencing programs should be given a statutory basis or should be available as a sentencing option, whether reparation orders are used appropriately, and whether the use of victim impact statements should be clarified.

Part 5 briefly examines the programs and sentencing options available for offenders with special needs, with a particular focus on young people and people with a mental illness or substance abuse problem. It seeks community views about improving the way in which the criminal justice system deals with offenders with substance abuse and mental health problems.

Finally, part 6 foreshadows legislative reform and seeks the views of the community on the desirability of an ACT sentencing act, and other possible sentencing reforms. The release of the sentencing review's first issues paper gives all members of the community a real opportunity to provide government with their views on positive ways to make sentencing law and practice in the ACT more relevant to the community, and more effective at dealing with crime and the causes of crime.

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