Coward Punch Laws

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:12): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Attorney-General regarding South Australia's so-called coward punch laws.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Some time ago, in November 2022, Mr Tyson Brady was unexpectedly hit twice by a stranger at a North Adelaide bar. Mr Brady was knocked unconscious and suffered a brain bleed from the impact, which now has the potential to erupt at any time in the future if he is ever struck again. Not surprisingly from this tragic event, Mr Brady suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder following this unprovoked violent attack.

After the offender pleaded guilty to causing harm he received a wholly suspended sentence of less than five months, which has now expired. The matter has been finalised and is no longer before the courts. Mr Brady has since called on the state government to toughen its penalties around the coward punch laws, to bring it into line with other states and jurisdictions such as New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia, which all have sentences which require actual jail time and, I understand, cannot be suspended in most circumstances.

In response to Mr Brady, I note a spokesperson for the Attorney-General stated, and I quote, 'The government is always open to exploring ways that legislation can be improved to make South Australians safer.' My questions to the Attorney-General are:

1. Is the Attorney-General satisfied that justice has been done and seen to be done in this case?

2. Will the state government commit to reviewing the South Australian legislation concerning coward punch laws to ensure that penalties are in line with community expectations, serve as a deterrence, and try to stop such events happening again in the future?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:13): I thank the honourable member for his question. Whenever we see incidents like this occur it is a tragedy for those involved and the families that are involved in these sorts of incidents. In relation to a part of the honourable member's questions about being satisfied about the sentence, I will repeat what I have said a number of times in here.

I have great faith in our judicial system and our criminal justice system. We as legislators set down the range of penalties to be imposed, given a particular set of circumstances and facts when they are found by a court. It is up to us as legislators to decide on the appropriateness. Certainly, over the last few years we have decided as legislators in certain areas—like the case I mentioned in the contribution on the bill on Tuesday with the death of Sophia Naismith—to increase penalties in relation to causing death with a vehicle in some circumstances.

Where a sentence that is imposed by a court is manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive, it is open to both the defendant in the case and the prosecuting authority—often, for an indictable offence, the DPP—to lodge an appeal for that sentence if it falls outside the range that is generally given for those sorts of offences. We set the guidelines, the parameters down, and the courts use those and come up with a sentence and sometimes, when it's appealed by the prosecuting authority or a defendant, it is adjusted to take into account what we set down for the courts to look at.

In relation to one-punch laws, I note that the honourable member is correct in the quote that he reads out. It is something that we are happy to have a look at. I note that in some other jurisdictions there are laws in relation to causing someone's death. So that is something, as I said, we are happy to have a look at and, as we have done, if there is a need to change a law in South Australia we will absolutely consider doing that, as we have done on a number of occasions for a number of these matters.