Sentencing for Violent Offenders

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:09): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Attorney-General regarding sentencing in South Australia.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Last June, Max Staples and Jake Twohill proceeded to assault two men completely unprovoked—

An honourable member: My question: good one.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Okay, thank you—which resulted in both victims requiring serious medical attention. One of the victims was a young father of three children who sustained significant brain damage as a result of the completely random and unprovoked attack after he was repeatedly kicked and hit in the head. On Monday just this week, despite pleading guilty to the assault, with the magistrate stating, and I quote, 'With more than 30 years on board, it's probably the most significant ongoing harm that I've ever seen', the convicted offenders avoided jail, instead receiving a two-year good behaviour bond.

My question to the Attorney-General is: does the Attorney-General consider it acceptable for convicted offenders who commit completely unprovoked, extremely violent attacks causing long-term injuries, including brain damage, to their victims to simply walk free from the courts?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:10): I thank the honourable member for his question, and I do acknowledge that he regularly asks questions in relation to this area and that he has long been concerned about the safety of the South Australian community. That is a credit to him. As we traversed over some of the reforms of the party he was formerly associated with—it had brought in reforms almost 20 years ago—it is acknowledged the work that has been done by the Hon. Dennis Hood and his predecessor in another party, Pastor Evans, who we spoke about yesterday.

I don't have information in relation to the specifics of the offenders and the sentence the honourable member mentioned. I think, as I've said before, it is very difficult to give answers with certainty and clarity, not having had the benefit of hearing all the evidence that is put forward, often over many weeks in a trial, often with dozens and dozens of witnesses and hearing every aspect of what constituted the offending, what all the reasons were.

So I'm not going to try to pass any sort of judgement or give reasons or proffer ideas about why a sentence may or may not have been handed down. However, I do note that in cases where sentences are manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive an option remains for either party to a prosecution, the prosecution or the defendant, to appeal that sentence, and that does happen not infrequently.

That is part of the nature of our judicial system—that where something falls that far outside what you would reasonably expect from what sort of sentences that have been imposed, given the range that parliament has seen fit to put for various sentences in the past, it is not an unusual thing that appeals are taken. If sentences are manifestly inadequate, it is something that the Office of the Director for Public Prosecutions does very regularly—appeal sentences.

Again, I don't know the specifics of this or whether there was remand that was a factor and time served taken into account in a sentence, but as I have said I'm not going to try to substitute, not having had the benefit of, very likely, weeks of detailed evidence through dozens of witnesses presented. But as I said, I do acknowledge the honourable member's interest and concern in making sure that South Australia is as safe as it can be.