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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3718 ..

The proposed objects of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Bill include: provision for the safe, humane and secure detention, supervision and management of remandees and offenders in correctional centres; provision for the effective administration of correctional centres and programs for offenders; provision for the effective supervision of offenders serving home detention or other sentences in the community, including early intervention strategies to reduce breaches of sentences and obligations under the bill; promotion of the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community through the provision of programs, supervision and effective case management; and a reduction in the repetition of criminal and other antisocial behaviour by offenders.

Currently, the courts determine allegations of breaches of home detention and periodic detention orders. There is a high rate of non-attendance and a low rate of cancellation with respect to periodic detention orders. Both periodic detention orders and home detention orders are sentences of imprisonment but the method that is used for the serving of those sentences differs from an ordinary, full-time custodial penalty. It is proposed that administration of home detention and periodic detention orders be transferred to the Sentence Administration Board.

The entire foundation for creating sentence administration or parole boards is to provide offenders who have been sentenced to periods of imprisonment with a degree of support and supervision so that they are not being set up for failure by having to address problems on their own. The aim is to assist them to reintegrate successfully into society. While completing their sentences offenders can be provided with support and guidance, particularly with respect to rehabilitative programs. Positive action could be taken and offenders could be required to appear before the board after failing to report for periodic detention on the first occasion rather than waiting for formal breach action to be taken after an extended period of time and after a number of allegations of failing to report.

Offenders could then be required to explain their absence, any issues would be identified and, if necessary, appropriate guidance and assistance would be provided to ensure compliance with the order. The administration of these orders is to be structured in a fashion similar to the one that presently operates for parolees. In addition, reducing the number of failures to report from three to two has strengthened the provisions. The option of suspending the sentence after an order has been cancelled has been removed.

It is also proposed that home detention suitability assessments be carried out prior to the imposition of a sentence of full-time imprisonment in circumstances where the court indicates it is likely to impose such a sentence. Reaction times to breach proceedings have been reduced. The availability of court attendance notices and the capacity for the Sentence Administration Board to require an offender to appear before it prior to formal cancellation proceedings have been commenced are designed to address breaches at the first available opportunity.

Powers of arrest with and without warrant have been strengthened and the availability of warrants for arrest for breach allegations has been extended. The new concept of court attendance notices is included in the bill to deal with allegations of breaches of court orders. They give police and corrections officers the ability to ask an offender to sign a notice to agree to attend court or the Sentence Administration Board within a specified

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