Page 5199 - Week 12 - Thursday, 27 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The government applied this method of analysis to each of the three offences highlighted by the DPP to determine an appropriate penalty increase and where on the scale of penalties each offence should sit in terms of seriousness. The increase to the maximum penalty for culpable driving causing death, from seven to 14 years, better reflects the relationship between manslaughter and this offence. Similar analysis informed the proposed penalty increase from four to 10 years for culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm and from 15 to 20 years for intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm.
One further finding from this review was that the maximum penalties for two other offences needed to be increased: the penalty for the offence of negligently causing grievous bodily harm needed to be increased to five years in light of a comparison with the related offence of intentionally or recklessly inflicting actual bodily harm. In addition, when the penalty for the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm was considered with other penalties, including the proposed new penalties, it became clear that in order to ensure an appropriate balance between penalties according to the seriousness of the offence the maximum penalty for this offence should be increased from 10 to 13 years.
The final step in the government’s comprehensive review was to confirm the results that I have just described by examining other offences on the ACT statute book that have the same maximum penalties as the five penalties under consideration. For example, the offence of negligently inflicting grievous bodily harm currently has the same maximum penalty, two years, as the offence of misconduct with regard to a corpse. I do not deny the criminality of the latter offence, but the harm caused and the level of fault required are both lower than that for a grievous bodily harm offence yet the penalty is currently the same.
Concerns have been raised that this bill is not sufficiently based on sentencing data. If such data had been available the government’s review would also have taken into account statistics on the sentences imposed for these offences. The government, as members would know, is currently working on measures to improve the capture of sentencing statistics. But where we do not have that data we have nevertheless approached this issue of determining appropriate maximum penalties as methodically and thoroughly as possible.
I would like to address some comments made by Mr Rattenbury during the debate on the Crimes (Sentencing) Amendment Bill. Mr Rattenbury quoted page 35 of the guide for framing offences that my directorate issued in 2001, which stated:
Despite popular perception, research suggests that increasing penalties does not act as a significant deterrent or prevent crime. Strategies that look at reducing the incidence of crime and improving detection, arrest and prosecution of offenders are generally more effective.
The government does not shy away from this advice, but the advice must be considered in its correct context, something Mr Rattenbury has failed to do. The offences to be increased by the government in the bill we are debating today are not strict liability offences that belong to a regulatory system. They are offences of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video