Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Suspended Sentences Suspended Sentences The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council Suspended Sentences The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (14:58): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking questions of the Attorney-General regarding suspended sentences and non-parole periods in South Australia. Leave granted. The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: This week in the District Court, Jacob Anthony Donhardt pleaded guilty to two counts of causing harm with intent for stabbing Nicholas Feast and Jordan Feast on 6 September 2020 during a fight between their feuding families over a game of pool in a hotel. He also broke a pool cue over one of their heads with such force it snapped in half, I believe. Donhardt was sentenced to eight years and three months in jail, with a non-parole period of four years and eight months for his convictions. It gets worse, because just four weeks prior to committing these offences Donhardt had been given a suspended sentence for committing a robbery using a knife—possibly even the same knife, one might speculate, although I don't know that. My questions are: 1.	Is the Attorney-General concerned that criminals who have brandished dangerous and offensive weapons—in this case, knives—in previous offences are being given suspended sentences and therefore putting the community at substantial risk, in this case just four weeks before this crime, stabbing two people? 2.	Is the Attorney-General concerned that the non-parole period of Donhardt's sentence represents an almost 50 per cent reduction in actual time to be served for such a serious and brutal crime, especially given the individual is a repeat offender? The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Attorney-General Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:59): I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge his interest in the safety of the South Australian community. He often and regularly raises issues of community safety. In relation to this particular case, I am not aware of the reasons for the sentence that was handed down. Certainly, as I think I have said a number of times in this chamber before, the sentencing of people who are convicted of an offence takes into account a whole range of different things and things that this parliament and parliaments of the past have set down as criteria and considerations. Certainly, there will be a whole range of matters that are taken into account when a sentence is formulated. If a sentence is deemed by the police or the DPP, who prosecute the offence, as manifestly inadequate given the circumstances, appeals are lodged. It is a feature of our system that sentences that are manifestly inadequate will be considered by the police or the DPP and appeals can be lodged. They are, as they find their way through the appellate system, occasionally upheld and sentences are increased. I have confidence that when the whole judgement is read, all the things are taken into account and if there is thought to be some error of things taken into account or not taken into account and it is a manifestly inadequate sentence, as regularly happens, an appeal would be lodged. As I say, I am not familiar with all the aspects and I don't have them before me and I would never seek to substitute my judgement on an individual matter like this for that of a judge who has had the benefit that I haven't had today of understanding all the matters that were before them.