Page 4091 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I come now to what the government package lacks and to speak in relation to my bill and the thrust of my amendments. My bill basically introduces several additional new offences which we have in New South Wales which police here have been trying to get in relation to the offence of car-jacking, and also some offences in relation to assaulting police and making threats, and intimidation towards police officers. Being a police officer is a particularly difficult job. I think it is essential that there be sufficient legislation to help protect them when they are attacked by wrongdoers.
It is very important to replicate what has occurred in New South Wales. According to the Australian Federal Police Association when I was drafting my legislation and going through the processes, what applies in the ACT in the view of police is simply not sufficient. They would be very keen to see the New South Wales provisions, which are replicated in my bill, adopted by the Assembly. They feel that that would give them much greater protection. They are at the front line of crime fighting in the territory and deserve all the assistance and protection they can get. Another thing that both police and victims have told me over the years is that often one of the most frustrating things for police and one of the most hurtful things for victims is to go through lengthy court proceedings, only to see the offender basically walk free with a totally inadequate sentence—what appeal courts call “weakly merciful” sentences.
I think it is important in the construction and confines of our justice system to have guidelines in place to assist lower courts. In New South Wales—my amendments talk about this—for a number of years the Court of Criminal Appeal has had the ability to issue guideline judgments. For example, they might pick a certain judgment and say, “Okay. This is probably fairly common to a number of types of armed robberies we see. These are the considerations and this is the type of penalty we would deem appropriate for that sort of offence.” It does not take away from the discretion the trial judge or a lower court would have but it issues a guideline—and a guideline in light of community expectations as well—which is terribly important.
New South Wales had gone further. When I was initially taking instructions and working out my package, they introduced recommended or standard non-parole periods, again with a list of aggravating circumstances or mitigating circumstances that courts could take into account. All things being equal, if there were no strong mitigating circumstances or strong aggravated circumstances, a court would have regard for the standard non-parole period. I see, from regularly reading the paper, that the standard non-parole period in New South Wales now for murder, which is the most serious of all offences, is 20 years. Up until 10 years ago the standard around the country was about 12 years. There was great concern among a lot of people in the community and among victims that 12 years was really inappropriate when a person deliberately planned to kill somebody else. I think 20 years is far more realistic. That applies in New South Wales. The courts there are operating very effectively under their standard non-parole period regime.
You will see variations, as you should, because, contrary to what those officers have said on a number of occasions, it is not mandatory sentencing. The courts have a discretion, which is quite clear from the legislation. You will sometimes see in New South Wales, even for murder, a much lower sentence when the circumstances warrant it and, on occasions, you will see a much higher sentence because of the heinous and aggravated
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .