Page 4157 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
concern to victims. I think this is fundamentally a problem and, accordingly, I would like to suggest that it be removed. This was a very strong recommendation made for very good reason by a number of people who assisted me in the compilation of our package. People should be responsible for their own actions. Anyway, there is ample opportunity for a court to take a plethora of considerations into effect, as well as things that they must take into effect.
Amendment No 10 relates to paragraph (y) on page 34 of the bill, which states:
current sentencing practice.
The Chief Minister that says we are a small sentencing jurisdiction. We do not have three courts, we have only two—the Magistrates Court and the Supreme Court. We have a limited number of judges and magistrates in the ACT. As a matter of common practice, what happens in Australian jurisdictions is looked at. Current sentencing practice in the ACT is probably not sufficient a guide because in some areas we do not have that many offences.
It is important to look at current sentencing practices in Australia. That means looking at the current sentencing practices in the states because our Crimes Act is akin to the crimes acts that operate in the six states and territories. In drafting our legislation, our parliamentary council said, “If you say ‘states’, you effectively include in practical terms the Northern Territory in determining whether there is anything relevant in their legislation.” So I think it is crucially important that we look at current sentencing practice. We need to enshrine in legislation that the courts have to look at current sentencing practice in the states—in other words, throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. Naturally, the courts here will look at their own decisions but we have to make sure that we take into account what happens in the rest of Australia. Our legislation would be quite deficient if we did not enshrine in legislation—and I hope this still occurs in practice—that we look at sentencing practices throughout the rest of the states.
Finally, amendment No 11 seeks to omit clause 33 (2) and (3) and substitute other words. Subclause (2) states:
Without limiting subsection (1),—
which deals with all the things a court must look at—
in deciding whether a good behaviour order is an appropriate penalty for an offence, the court must consider the nature and severity of the conditions that may apply to the offender under the order.
Secondly, subclause (3) states:
Subsections (1) and (2) do not limit the measures a court may consider in deciding how an offender should be sentenced (if at all) for an offence.
I have truncated those two subclauses to read:
(2) The court may have regard to any other matter the court considers appropriate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .