Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]

SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 3) 2001


Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be read a second time.

The purpose of these bills is to repeal the mandatory sentencing regime for property offences that applies to both adults and juveniles under the Sentencing Act and the Juvenile Justice Act respectively. The repeal of the mandatory sentencing is one of this government’s major election promises and we are keen for this to be one of our first initiatives.

The amendments proposed by these bills are all part of this government’s six-point plan on crime prevention, other bills addressing our six-point plan are also being introduced in these sittings. These deal with the new offences of home and business invasion, car trashing, and the issuing by police officers of notices to appear. This package of amendments is an integral element in the overhaul of our criminal justice system. It will make the system more effective to combat the increasing crime rates and will provide Territorians with a greater level of personal protection.

The mandatory sentencing regime imposed by the previous government has been in place for too long in the Northern Territory. That regime has resulted in the imposition of unjust and inappropriate sentences of imprisonment while having no positive impact on the crime rate. There is no evidence to suggest that under mandatory sentencing offenders have been deterred from committing property offences. Moreover, the mandatory sentencing regime has done nothing for victims. The current minimum mandatory sentencing regime for property offences provides no scope for discretion except insofar as it commits the imposition of greater sentences. This has resulted in a regime that operates unfairly and inconsistently. Because the mandatory minimum periods apply to all types of property offences, the current regime has not properly targeted suitable offences. We have seen inappropriate sentences of imprisonment apply to trivial offences and inadequate sentences apply to more serious offences such as housebreaking.

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that many members of the community, including the legal profession, have spoken out against the current regime. Magistrates have repeatedly indicated that they have been forced to impose sentences that they consider to be manifestly excessive in the particular circumstances of a case. The regime has been investigated by the Federal Parliamentary Committee and is the subject of a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee for breaching Australia’s treaty obligations. On the introduction of its mandatory sentencing legislation, the previous government stated that the object of the mandatory sentencing regime was to address public concerns about crime levels with an aim to deterring offenders, reducing crime and ensuring that people felt safe in their homes.

The reality has turned out to be something different. Mandatory sentencing has had little or no positive effect. In fact, unlawful entries in Alice Springs and Darwin urban regions continue to increase. Nearly 90% of offenders in urban areas continue to get away with property offences undetected. The simple fact is that Territorians do not feel safer in their own homes under mandatory sentencing. The Sentencing Amendment Bill (No.3) 2001 introduces a much better scheme for the sentencing of adults convicted of aggravated property offences. It introduces a scheme that properly targets offences, the offences that Territorians are concerned about. It is a scheme that does not require persons convicted of minor offences to be unjustly imprisoned at the taxpayer’s expense. A scheme that considers more appropriately the views of victims and, more importantly, a scheme that allows for the court to exercise discretion while still requiring that the public interest in ensuring that adequate sentences are imposed for serious property offences is given a high regard.

In short, a scheme that is capable of being both tough on crime and applied appropriately and fairly. Madam Speaker, as already mentioned, the new scheme will target only aggravated property offences. These will include the new offences of aggravated home and business premises invasion and car thrashing, as well as robbery, unlawful entry, assault with intent to steal and aggravated criminal damage. This means that only those offences that have a high impact on victims and which are the main focus of community concerns will be caught by the new scheme.

In relation to the actual sentencing process, the bill ensures that the courts are given a clear purpose to consider when sentencing for an aggravated property offence. The purpose of the new scheme is clearly stated to ensure that community disapproval of persons committing aggravated property offences is adequately reflected in the sentences imposed on those persons.

Madam Speaker, as part of the new scheme the bill repeals the provisions of the Sentencing Act related to punitive work orders. These types of orders were introduced at the same time as the original mandatory sentencing regime and were intended to be a tougher alternative to community service orders. They were set at no more and no less than 224 hours of work to be performed, and required one on one supervision by officers of Correctional Services. However these orders have been shown to be both ineffective and extremely expensive to maintain. They are inflexible orders that cannot be tailored to suit specific cases. In addition, the assessment of offenders for a suitability for such an order are both onerous and resource intensive. The courts have been reluctant to order them and in the last four years only 20 have been ordered. In reality, the limited role they can play can be more aptly covered by a flexible community based order.

This is why the bill, as well as community current punitive work orders, will review the current community service orders provisions. Firstly, the name of the orders will be changed to community work orders, and to more accurately reflect the focus of the orders. Secondly, the bill provides a clear statement of what community work orders are intended to achieve. That is that the orders are to ensure that offenders make amends to the community by performing work that benefits the community. When an offender is convicted of an aggravated property offence, unless exceptional circumstances exist, the court must impose either a term of imprisonment or a community work order. A term of imprisonment can be partly suspended but can only be wholly suspended where a home detention order is made. Unlike the current regime, the court has complete discretion to determine the length of the sentence according to the seriousness of the offence, or to make any other sentencing order it is authorised to make. Similarly, if exceptional circumstances are found to exist, the court can make any order it considers appropriate.

It must be stressed that the term exceptional circumstances under the new scheme is to have the common law definition. The court can have regard to any factor it considers exceptional. It is not to be confused with the narrowly defined term as used in the current mandatory sentencing regime. All aspects of the current mandatory sentencing regime are irrelevant to the new scheme and should not be considered or taken into account in any matter.

The new sentencing scheme will apply from the date of the commencement, which is 22 October 2001. This is regardless of when the offence occurred. Any offender who is already in prison serving a mandatory sentence for a property offence will not be entitled to have their case reopened. This government respects the rule of law and the fact is that these people committed offences and were sentenced under the law of the day. However, in the case of any real injustice an offender will still be able to apply for a probity of mercy. That provision has always been available.

This government is committed to ensuring that the new scheme for aggravated property offences will be successful and properly applied. That is why I undertake to scrutinise sentences under the new scheme and bring to the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions any cases where it is apparent that the intention of parliament has not been achieved.

In relation to mandatory sentencing regime for repeat juvenile property offenders, the Juvenile Justice Amendment Bill (No 2) 2001 proposes the complete repeal of this regime. Quite rightly this regime has borne the brunt of much criticism, both nationally and internationally. One of the main foci of any government should be on giving the most vulnerable in our community the opportunity to develop to their full potential. A regime that imprisons our children for minor offences does not provide this.

One aspect of the juvenile regime will remain. Under the current regime, the court has the power to order that a juvenile found guilty of a second or subsequent property offence is to participate in a diversionary program. These often include victim offender conferencing. Instead of repealing a program that has enjoyed a level of success, it will be expanded to cover all types of offences. This will mean that in any case involving a juvenile offender, the court will have this additional sentencing option available.

With the repeal of the juvenile mandatory sentencing regime, all juvenile sentencing will be at the complete discretion of the court. A juvenile sentenced after the repeal of the current regime will be sentenced as if it had never been in place. This is regardless of when the property offence was committed. The repeal of the punitive work orders and the new community work orders will also apply to the juvenile scheme.

Another important aspect of the government’s six point plan is all about putting victims first. Provision has been made in both the Sentencing Act and the Juvenile Justice Act for victim impact statements to contain a statement of the victim’s wishes in respect to sentencing. This will apply to all offences, not only to aggravated property offences, and will give victims a more satisfying input into the sentencing process. The Sentencing (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2001 and the Juvenile Justice (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2001 amend references throughout Territory legislation to accommodate the repeal of mandatory sentencing for property offences for both adults and juveniles. The bills will accommodate the repeal of punitive work orders and amend references to the new community work orders. The bills contain only technical and uncontroversial amendments.

Madam Speaker, this government is pleased to be in the position to repeal the current mandatory sentencing regime for property offences. This government rejects a regime that operates unjustly and inappropriately just for the sake of appearing to be tough on crime. That is why we are introducing a scheme that will actually work. One that is fair and property targeted at all sorts of offences that are of real concern to Territorians.

Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members.


 

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]