Page 2771 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Leave granted.
MRS DUNNE: I table the following paper:
Culpable driving causing death and culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm—Intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm—Levels of penalties for ACT offences—Copy of letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions to Mrs Dunne, dated 11 May 2011.
Mr Speaker, there was a public outcry about the perceived leniency of that sentencing decision. This leniency is directly attributable to inaction by ACT Labor. The government’s refusal to consider increased penalties for criminal offences is itself culpable. The government’s refusal to consider increased penalties for criminal offences left the ACT isolated, where sentences handed out by our courts are not up to the public perceptions of seriousness and are seriously out of kilter with penalties handed out across the border.
In truth, ACT courts looked at sentencing in the context of the Assembly’s expressed views of the seriousness of the relevant offences. As I have stated before, the Director of Public Prosecutions advised me that, in his appeal to the ACT Court of Appeal that I mentioned earlier, the court heard the array of interstate comparative sentencing provisions but had little regard for them.
As we have seen, Mr Speaker, the court remarked on the low level of penalties in the ACT when compared to other jurisdictions. The court indicated that this was a demonstration of the legislature’s intention that these sorts of offences should not be taken as seriously as in other jurisdictions. The court considered the ACT penalty provisions in the context of the sentences handed down for a range of similar cases in NSW and Victoria, but indicated that they were of limited value given the higher sentences in those jurisdictions.
So it took a serious culpable driving incident, in which two young people were killed and another seriously injured, a public perception of the leniency of the sentences, and a statement from the highest courts in our jurisdiction to drag this Labor government and this Attorney-General to the realisation that they needed to have some consistency, that we needed to have some consistency in our sentencing laws compared to our neighbours. Mr Corbell, after the DPP wrote to him, indicated that he would review penalties for culpable driving offences; so I look forward to his enthusiastic support, certainly for those elements of this bill.
In framing this bill today, I took the opportunity to review the penalties for manslaughter, including aggravated manslaughter. As noted in the explanatory statement, and earlier in this speech, the justice and community safety committee, in its murder inquiry, recommended that these penalties be increased. This was a unanimous recommendation of the committee and the bill responds directly to that recommendation. The government in May this year, however, rejected the recommendation, saying that it would be dealt with in the context of the national review of penalties for offences causing death.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video