CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING) (ABOLITION OF SUSPENDED SENTENCES FOR SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:29): obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to reintroduce the Criminal Law (Sentencing) (Abolition of Suspended Sentences for Subsequent Serious Offences) Amendment Bill 2008, possibly the longest titled bill I have ever introduced. Members may recall that I introduced this bill to the Legislative Council back in 2008. They may also recall that I perceived there to be a lack of support and, as such, it was never brought to a vote, so it did lapse. However, in subsequent discussions, I understand that there may have been more support for the bill than I initially realised, hence the reintroduction of this bill.

Clearly, there has been a great deal of media attention on this issue in recent months, given the serious spate of various crimes that have taken place in our city streets in recent times. In light of this, it is possible that the general attitudes to punishment for serious crimes in this place, and indeed in our community, has firmed somewhat, hence the reintroduction of this bill.

For members' interest and for clarity, I gave my second reading speech back on 18 June 2008. Members will be relieved to know that I will not go through that speech again in its entirety this evening; I will only make a few brief points referring members to that speech.

The way in which this bill would operate in its most fundamental sense is very clear. It would prevent a court from ordering that a sentence of imprisonment be suspended where the sentence is for a subsequent serious offence in any 10-year period. The offences are listed in the bill; I will not go through them again. I think members will find it self-explanatory.

Just to be clear, the court would have the power to suspend a sentence if one of these serious offences had occurred at a given time, but they would not have the power to suspend a subsequent sentence within any 10-year period for one of these serious offences only. They would have the power to do that for a minor offence or for a less serious offence. That is not included in my bill.

During my speech I gave examples of some suspended sentences that I say should quite clearly not have been suspended, sentences that would be caught by this bill and not be allowed to be suspended. I suspect that most people would agree that the suspension of the sentences in the cases I have outlined were completely inappropriate and, indeed, plainly wrong, yet the courts did order them. Legislation is needed to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again and that criminals are not given suspended sentence after suspended sentence. As I said, I will not labour this point.

I just make the general observation that the current Attorney-General, the Hon. John Rau from the other place, indicated during a radio interview a sense of favour toward this bill, so I am somewhat optimistic that the government may wish to take this bill on or, perhaps, amend and reshape it. Nonetheless, if we were able to achieve an outcome along these lines, I would certainly be pleased.

Just to be clear in my final comments, I do not seek to reduce whatsoever the power of the courts in their initial sentencing. I think there is an appropriate level of flexibility in sentencing that courts enjoy, but I think the thing that upsets many people in our community is seeing particularly violent offences and very high level offences being given repeated suspended sentences. As I say, I have outlined a number of those examples in my speech back on 18 June 2008, so members can refer to that for some very specific examples. I think most people will read those and simply shake their head that this sort of thing does happen. Unfortunately, it happens more commonly than I think people realise, certainly more commonly than I realised, and this bill would put that matter to bed.

I am certainly open to other members' ideas or thoughts on this. Some members may argue that perhaps the number should be three suspended sentences in a 10-year period. Some may argue that two is the right number. In any case, I am open to discussion and I look forward to receiving the support of members. I also say to members that this will most certainly be brought to a vote, given that there has been some indication of support. I anticipate that I would look to bring this to a vote some time in the middle of the year.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.