Page 4229 - Week 13 - Thursday, 27 November 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
for the administration of each sentencing option under that act and set out the consequences for offenders who failed to meet their obligations. Both acts have served the territory well, and continue to do so.
Periodic detention remained a sentencing option under the new framework, but its role changed. Rather than being a stand-alone, alternative way of serving a sentence of imprisonment, the sentencing act allowed the courts to combine periodic detention with other sentences. This approach allowed courts to tailor sentences to a particular offence and offender, and meant that periodic detention could be used not only as a stand-alone way of serving a sentence of imprisonment but also as something of a “half-way house” to transition an offender from full-time detention to, in effect, part-time detention.
While periodic detention has been a useful sentencing option, the government are now of the view that periodic detention is no longer the best that we can do. It does have its limitations in terms of both supervision and rehabilitation. Offenders are only under the supervision of Corrective Services for the two days of the week they are in periodic detention, and the number and type of programs that can be offered during this time are necessarily limited. So there are fewer opportunities to provide effective rehabilitation.
When New South Wales abolished periodic detention in 2010, the ACT was left alone in Australia in having periodic detention as a sentencing option.
We live in an ever-changing world. Academic research produces new ideas and evidence, and innovations in other jurisdictions provide the impetus for reflection on whether we can do better. In that context, I have announced the two-year justice reform strategy, which will examine sentencing law and practice in the territory, and consider how they could be improved.
The government is satisfied that periodic detention no longer represents the best option for the community, victims or offenders. Having made that decision, the question then becomes how to best achieve that goal. Simply repealing periodic detention as a sentencing option is not viable, as we will need to craft a replacement sentencing option before periodic detention stops being an option.
This bill is a transition—a transition away from periodic detention in a way that balances the need to keep it as an option while we prepare for its abolition. The bill does this in three ways. Firstly, it prohibits combination sentencing involving full-time detention and periodic detention. Secondly, it only allows courts to impose sentences involving periodic detention that end before 1 July 2016. Thirdly, it applies these changes to offences sentenced or re-sentenced on or after the commencement of the bill.
It is the third aspect of the bill—applying the changes to offences sentenced or re-sentenced on or after the commencement date—which is perhaps the most unusual. This is because usually, when new legislation is introduced, it only applies to offences committed on or after the legislation comes into force. The general prohibition on retrospective criminal laws is enshrined in ACT law in our Human Rights Act.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video