Bills

Sentencing Bill

Final Stages

The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly:

No. 1. Clause 43, page 36, after line 11 [clause 43(8), definition of chief officer]—After paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) in the case of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption—the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption;

No. 2. Clause 57, page 49, after line 25—After subclause (4) insert:

(4a) The Supreme Court may, if the Attorney-General has made an application under subsection (3) in respect of a person who is in prison serving a sentence of imprisonment, make an interim order that the person is to remain in custody pending determination by the Supreme Court as to whether to make an order under this section that the person be detained in custody until further order.

No. 3. Clause 72, page 61, line 1 [clause 72(1)(a)(ii)]—Delete 'defendant' and substitute 'person'

No. 4. Clause 72, page 61, lines 2 to 4 [clause 72(1)(a)(iii)]—Delete subparagraph (iii) and substitute:

(iii) attendance at—

(A) a place for the purpose of undergoing assessment or treatment (or both) relating to the person's mental or physical condition; or

(B) an intervention program; or

(C) any other course of education, training or instruction, or other activity,

as approved or directed by the home detention officer to whom the person is assigned;

No. 5. Clause 72, page 61, line 21 [clause 72(1)(h)]—Delete 'defendant' and substitute 'person'

No. 6. Clause 73, page 62, after line 41—After subclause (5) insert:

(5a) A person who appears before the court as required by a summons issued under this section may be remanded in custody pending determination of the proceedings.

No. 7. Clause 73, page 63, line 5 [clause 73(7)]—Delete 'or released on bail'

No. 8. Clause 83, page 69, after line 10—After subclause (5) insert:

(5a) A person who appears before the court as required by a summons issued under this section may be remanded in custody pending determination of the proceedings.

No. 9. Clause 83, page 69, line 15 [clause 83(7)]—Delete 'or released on bail'

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.

This Sentencing Bill, which has been modified slightly in the other place, is nonetheless acceptable to the government as modified, and I indicate that the government will be supporting the bill. I would like to say a few words of thanks, if I can.

First of all, the Sentencing Bill has been part of an epic law reform project in criminal law. It has been paired legislatively and conceptually with the major indictable reform bill, which went through the parliament a month or so ago, and it forms the second half of a legislative package, which I firmly believe, once it is fully functional in our court system, will deliver significant improvement in the efficiency of the courts and will give us better value for money in terms of the extremely expensive resources we have in the form of judicial officers who need to be spending their time determining cases, not doing adjournments and mucking around with trivia. It is a very important package.

This particular part of the package is to do with sentencing, and sentencing has been something that I have always had feedback about from members of the community. Overwhelmingly, people are confused about sentencing. What is it that a judge takes into account? Why do they make certain determinations? Why do they not make other determinations? This has led me down a path of inquiry that has gone on for some years. It has ultimately led to this Sentencing Bill, which makes a simple statement of principle, and that simple statement of principle is this: when a judge is sentencing someone in a criminal offence, the number one consideration—number one, not equal with 15 or 20 other things—is public safety. It trumps everything.

After public safety, other matters, that are relatively few, may be considered. The present sentencing legislation has a consideration page for the judicial officer hearing the case, which resembles the menu in a Chinese restaurant, with 100 or so different options and matters for consideration. At the end, just in case they have not covered everything, the judicial officer is invited to consider anything else they think might be relevant. How on earth that provides a judge with any guidance, I do not know. No wonder judges understandably struggle with working out what on earth the Sentencing Act is asking them to do. Hopefully, those days are gone because hopefully the provisions in the Sentencing Act now will give them a very clear idea of what the public expects of them.

That does not mean that the judge has no work to do. It is quite the contrary. It just means the judge will have a clearer compass setting when they are approaching the question of sentencing. We should not underestimate how complex the judge's job is. I frequently become quite annoyed at some of the commentary about sentences in criminal cases. It is all too easy to say, 'It's the judge's fault,' or 'It's the DPP's fault because they didn't appeal something.' In 99 times out of 100, that is not right. In the one time out of 100 it is right and there is a right of appeal, those appeals can go up, and when they are taken up, usually they are taken seriously and they often succeed, so the system has the capability of correcting itself. That said, that is no substitute for giving clear guidance and that is exactly what we are doing here.

From my perspective, this journey, this reform of the criminal justice system, began about 15 years ago, but my staff tell me it was only about four years ago and others say it was less than that. It certainly feels like 15 years because there has been more consultation, exposition, garnering of thoughts and sitting down and talking to people than you could possibly imagine about this, and at the end of it there were still disputes because—surprise, surprise—people of goodwill occasionally have differences of opinion. That said, people with ill will and people who do not know what they are talking about always have a different opinion, but let's not dwell on that.

As I said, this is a really significant piece of reform. It is part of a pigeon pair with the major indictable reforms. This is a significant piece of work from the Criminal Justice Reform Project, from the Criminal Justice Reform Council, which represents all the main government entities involved in the criminal justice system. I would like to make particular mention of Mr Matthew Goode, who takes more responsibility for this than he can possibly know. It is his fault that I am a lawyer because he trained me; he might regret that now. I recall him teaching me about criminal law and private international law and various other things; hopefully, Mr Goode thinks his efforts then were not completely wasted.

He has been a tireless worker in the Attorney-General's Department and has worked extensively with me and my office on this. I say, Matthew, thank you very much for that. I understand that Matthew is pulling back somewhat further than he has so far in respect of providing advice to us. Can I say on my own behalf and I am sure on behalf of the former attorney that we both deeply appreciate your wisdom and your work, thank you. I would also like to say that my staff have really shouldered an enormous burden in enduring my constant question of, 'Are we there yet?' It is often a sketch that one hears about kids in the car: you have just got out of the driveway, you are heading down the street and you are off to Melbourne, 'Are we there yet?'

The CHAIR: I could say that to you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, you could, and you probably will, so I am nearly there. I am told that that is how I have treated this whole project by those with whom I work. Notwithstanding that that 15 years has taken a very long time, can I say to Will Evans, thank you, Will, for enduring all this and thank you for the great work you have done. Even though it has taken the best part of a decade to get here, or at least that is how it seemed because somehow I was stuck in a slipstream where time moved at 0.5 of its normal speed (sorry, that is a Dr Who thing), the point is that it has taken an enormous amount of time and an enormous amount of effort.

Thank you, Will, for your effort because you have really stuck with this. You have followed this through all its twists and turns, you have never let go and you have never, ever allowed me to do what I wanted to do, which probably would have meant that we would not be here successfully today, so thank you very much for that, Will. That is all; I just wanted to say thank you to all those people. This is a very exciting moment for law reform in South Australia and I feel that it is a very important milestone for the parliament.

Motion carried.