SENTENCING, ARMED ROBBERY

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:05): Does the Premier have any information about whether an appeal will be lodged in relation to the sentence imposed on the so-called overall bandits?

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (14:05): I am pleased that the honourable member has asked this question. The offence of armed robbery is amongst the most serious in the criminal law. Armed robbery is an inherently violent offence. It creates extreme terror in the minds of its victims, including bank and other employees and members of the public who happen to be present when dangerous criminals strike. The impact of their crimes on innocent victims cannot be underestimated. It is not unusual for victims of armed robbers to experience long-term emotional and psychological damage due to the trauma of the armed robbery. Many are scarred for life and some have great difficulty in returning to work. The danger and risk of serious physical injury or even death during an armed robbery is real and, tragically, on some occasions, innocent people are seriously harmed.

I was, therefore, deeply concerned that two armed robbers convicted of multiple offences were sentenced to a non-parole period of just eight years for six armed hold-ups and one attempted armed hold-up, as well as the illegal use of seven cars. The apparent leniency of the sentence has created public concern, and I share that concern. I am particularly concerned that the non-parole period is a mere one-half of the head sentence of 16 years' imprisonment. As a rough measure of the justice of the case, the non-parole period equates to a little over one year for each offence of armed robbery, and then there are the offences of attempted armed robbery and illegal use of the seven cars to consider.

I do not accept that anything in the circumstances of this case reduces the responsibility of the offenders for their criminal conduct. Despite some not unusual personal issues, both appeared to have had the benefit of a good upbringing and sound educational opportunities. I can think of nothing that could excuse such a serious premeditated and deliberate crime repeated over and over. The offenders, who were armed with a shot gun and a .22 rifle, were clothed in overalls and masks. On four occasions the offenders carried a large sledgehammer or an axe into the banks. Both offenders must have presented a menacing and terrifying image to the victims.

The sentencing judge in his sentencing remarks acknowledges the impact on victims including depression, anxiety, fear and nervousness. Many have experienced detrimental effects in their family and personal relationships. A number of the victims still need professional help. The Attorney-General has asked the Director of Public Prosecutions whether he intends to appeal the sentence. Of course, whether the sentence can be appealed in this case is a matter for the DPP. I understand that the Acting DPP has already indicated that the matter warrants close consideration and that an assessment of whether the sentence can be appealed has commenced. I await the outcome of that assessment and any subsequent appeal with keen interest.

I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of these matters; that will be determined on the basis of the existing law. If, according to law, the sentence is consistent with current sentencing standards, the Attorney-General will undertake a review of the relevant law to ensure that the tariff for such serious crimes more adequately reflects reasonable public expectations. But I think that the public have a right to be concerned about this sentence and I share that concern.