Wichen, Mr J.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:16): Further supplementary: in the event that we are not satisfied with the judgement of the Supreme Court, is it open and indeed incumbent upon all of us to raise bills in parliament that would address those sorts of decisions?

The PRESIDENT: I'm not sure it's a supplementary question arising from the original answer, but you can answer if you want.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:16): I am happy to answer it. There are a number of mechanisms if there is a dissatisfaction with what a court decides to do. As I have mentioned a number of times in this place, either the police who conduct prosecutions or the DPP who conduct more serious prosecutions, at the sentencing stage it is open to them to lodge appeals.

Appeals can be lodged for a whole range of reasons, both on the non-finding of guilt generally, if it's the DPP lodging an appeal, or the nature of the sentence. If it's based on precedent in terms of the range of sentences that are possible, if it is manifestly inadequate—that is, it falls so far below what that sort of sentence would usually attract—SAPOL or the DPP can lodge an appeal against that sentence. And they do so often; they do so very often.

There was a recent case where a particularly disturbing murder attracted a life sentence for murder, which is required, but with a non-parole period of either 22 or 23 years, for someone who was a murderer and disposed of the body up in the Flinders Ranges, I think. Although, it doesn't mean that the person convicted of that crime gets out after 22 years, it means that's the first time they could possibly apply for bail. Notwithstanding that, the DPP has lodged an appeal against that sentence and that's what happens exceptionally regularly in relation to sentencing.

It is open for appeals to be lodged in relation to the decisions of courts depending on the nature of the facts and what the decision relates to all the way up to, as we sometimes see—and this is in the case the Hon. Ben Hood mentioned—the High Court if people are dissatisfied with decisions that have been made. But, as the honourable member suggests, it is always open to us as legislators to look to pass laws in this place to reflect community standards. It is always important to balance, when we do these things, relative sentences that are handed down for other offences.

It is a danger sometimes that you increase a sentence in one particular area and that brings it completely out of proportion with what in some cases might be what the community expects for more heinous crimes. So it is a difficult balancing act, but it is open for appeals to higher courts, and it is always open for us as legislators to make that decision to reflect community expectations.