VICTIMS OF CRIME
COMMISSIONER I ACT
Submission to J ustice Reform Strategy, Justice and
Community Safety on F irst Stage Report
Justice Reform Strategy - First Stage Report
Legislation, Policy and Programs Branch
Justice and Community Safety Directorate
GPO Box 158
Canberra ACT 2601
I welcome the opportunity to provide a submission to the Justice Reform Strategy in
response to the First Stage Report into a new community based sentencing option for the
ACT. For the purposes of this response I will be referring to the new sentencing option as
'intensive corrections orders' {ICOs) and 'new sentencing options' interchangeably.
Initial Considerations
Community corrections orders, under various names and in various forms, currently exist in
New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. They have also been utilised in various
countries around the world, including the United States, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada,
England, Wales and South Africa.
The United States have conducted more extensive evaluations of these types of orders and
their effectiveness than any other country. Whilst program design and effectiveness vary
dramatically within the United States, research suggests that any community based
sentencing option should combine a surveillance component with a treatment component
1
to affect recidivism. Reductions in recidivism rates were not identified for sentences that
2
did not include a rehabilitation component.
The success of a community based sentencing option in the ACT is dependent on the
allocation of sufficient resources for treatment through rehabilitation programs and
supervision.
Offender programs and outcomes
The community needs greater certainty and evidence about the effectiveness of current
programs before it is asked to expend more resources on similar, albeit more intensive,
interventions. The lack of evidence on the effectiveness of current programs and the
absence of data on current program activity creates doubt about offender accountability
and effectiveness of non-custodial sentences.
1
Lorana Bartels, 'Literature Review on Intensive Supervision Orders: A Report Prepared for the ACT Justice and
Community Safety Directorate' {2014) 17
2
Ibid, 17 Citing C Lowenkamp et al, 'Intensive Supervision Programs: Does Program Philosophy and the
Principles of Effective Intervention Matter?' (2010) 38 Journal of Criminal Justice 368, 369.
1
VICTIMS OF CRIME
COMMISSIONER I ACT
3
Measuring the effectiveness of offender programs is notoriously difficult. Despite this
difficulty, comprehensive evaluation and publication of evaluation outputs is necessary for
developing an evidence base from which to make improvements to programs or to measure
whether or not they are effective.
The success of intensive corrections orders will be highly dependent on the availability of
relevant, evidence-based therapeutic programs for offenders. Currently, there is limited
publicly available information on the rehabilitative programs available to offenders serving
community based sentences in the ACT. It is essential to the community's acceptance of the
new sentencing option that the public be provided with specific information on the
programs that will be available under its conditions, with public reporting on program
outcomes, the frequency of programs, numbers of participants, and levels of attendance
and completion. Completion rates are important to measure because outcome studies
generally identify a reduction of re-offending of between 10 per cent and 30 per cent
4
among offenders who complete programs.
Programs need to include evidence based and regularly evaluated domestic violence
perpetrator programs, sexual assault offender programs, other violence/anger management
programs and drug and alcohol programs. In addition, the consequences associated with
offender non-attendance at programs must be clearly spelt out in advance and consistently
upheld through timely breach action. The Courts must also be supported to send the clear
message to perpetrators that there are limited second chances' given to those who are non
compliant with expectations and reasonable directions.
1
Sentencing advisory council and Review of the new sentencing option
The ACT Sentencing database has been established to assist in gathering information about
sentencing practices in the ACT. However unlike NSW and the Commonwealth, no advisory
board or counsel exists in the ACT to review and assess the information made available by
the database. Dr Lorana Bartels, from University of Canberra stated that
sentencing councils have a critical role to play as a bridge between the criminal
justice system and the general public. Victims and the ACT public in general deserve
both accessible data and a council which can effectively
disseminate
this
5
information.
It is extremely difficult to meaningfully assess and evaluate the outcomes of sentencing
options in the ACT without an expert authority of this type.
In the absence of a sentencing advisory council it is critical that a substantive review of the
effectiveness of the new sentencing option is conducted five years after its implementation.
This review needs to measure total numbers of orders being made by the court, whether
they are used in the manner in which they are intended to be used, whether the new order
3
F Losel, What Works in Reducing Re-Offending: A Global Perspective, 27 April 2010.
Victorian Ombudsman, Investigation into the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners in Victoria Discussion Paper, December 2014 9.
5
Databank not enough for Justice', Canberra Times, 6 December 2012
4
2
VICTIMS OF CRIME
COMMISSIONER I ACT
has resulted in net-widening and impacts on recidivism compared to other sentence
options. It will also be important to analyse the type of offences it is used for, the type of
conditions being imposed within those orders, and the way in which breaches of the orders
are dealt with.
A form of imprisonment
I agree with the advice and rationale provided by the Advisory Group in relation to the new
sentencing option being expressed as a term of imprisonment.
Net-widening
Agenda item 3 from the Advisory Group meeting on 13 May 2015 related to the risk of 'netwidening'. One of the views expressed was that in order to prevent net-widening down the
scale of sentencing, an intensive corrections order should only be imposed after the judicial
officer has determined that a term of imprisonment would be appropriate and has indicated
the term of imprisonment to be imposed.
It was proposed that an adjournment would be made to allow assessment of offenders'
suitability for an intensive corrections order. One of the concerns raised during the Advisory
Group discussion on this issue was that an assessment for this type of order may be
complex and distinct from the type of assessment used to prepare a pre-sentence report. It
is not clear what the assessment process for an ICO would involve, but details of what this
assessment involves should be articulated to determine whether this assessment could be
incorporated into a pre-sentence report.
Currently, once a court determines that a pre-sentence report is required, the matter is
adjourned for approximately 4 weeks for offenders who are in custody, and 6 weeks for
offenders on bail to allow the report to be prepared. Presumably, a second assessment for
an ICO would require a comparable timeframe. It is also probable that further submissions
would need to be made once the assessment is put before the court, by both prosecution
and defence, essentially resulting in two separate sentencing exercises. This lengthy
adjournment and additional sentencing proceeding will be costly and will cause significant
delays in finalising matters.
Length of new sentence order
The new sentencing option should be limited to a maximum of two years. This would
provide an appropriate and sufficient opportunity for therapeutic intervention. It should
also be noted that the new sentencing option replaces periodic detention which, prior to
6
the most recent amendments, was limited to 2 years.
Some cap on the length of orders is necessary. The therapeutic and/or rehabilitative
opportunities inherent in the new sentencing option may have limited utility if imposed for
more than two years as criminogenic factors are best addressed through early, intensive
therapeutic interventions and close supervision in the early stages of an order. It would also
6
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) 11.3(b)- effective 28/02/2014- 04/12/2014
3
VICTIMS OF CRIME
COMMISSIONER I ACT
be unsustainable to subject offenders to intensive interventions for periods longer than two
years.
Deciding that a term of imprisonment will be imposed before deciding that it will be served
by way of ICO may help prevent net widening. If a term of imprisonment is to be
determined prior to assessment for an intensive corrections order, the two year cap will
help reduce potential net-widening up the sentencing scale by negating the need for
assessment for ICO. Judicial officers imposing a term of imprisonment exceeding 2 years
would not be required to have an offender assessed for an ICO.
Excluding offenders who are sentenced to a period of imprisonment for longer than two
years would bolster community confidence in the order by reassuring the public that
extremely serious offenders would not be eligible for the new option. A Canadian study
investigated community confidence in community based sentencing options and looked at
community confidence in sentences. It found that 64% of people surveyed supported the
1
orders when conditions were very clear, it also found that doubling the length of sentence
only increased support by 8%, suggesting that people are after appropriate conditions, not
7
simply longer sentences.'
Consideration should also be given to legislating a minimum term of six months for ICOs. A
primary objective of this sentencing option should be to achieve sustained and meaningful
change in the offender's behaviours and situation. This is unlikely to be achieved if an order
is only in place for a few months, especially given that 1rehabilitation of such short periods
8
[less than six months] is considered unrealistic' in prison. The resources required to assess
and implement an intensive corrections order would only be a worthwhile investment if
sufficient time is available to achieve change. New Zealand requires that their intensive
9
supervision orders are imposed for a minimum of 6 months which appears to be a logical
and practical restriction on the application of a sentence of this type.
Eligibility for new sentence
If an ICO replaces periodic detention, it should follow that that only those offences which
would have previously attracted a term of imprisonment are targeted.
In Victoria a Community Corrections Order (CCO} can be imposed for any offence punishable
10
by more than 5 penalty units - this is a very low threshold. Given where this new
sentencing option is designed to sit in relation to other sentencing options, and the
unanimous view of the Advisory Group that it should be expressed as a term of
imprisonment, the ACT should place more limits on the range of offences the ICO is
available for.
7
Lorana Bartels, above nl, 11citing T Sanders and J Roberts, 'Public Attitudes toward Conditional Sentencing:
Results of A National Survey' (2000) 32 Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 199.
8
Justice and Community Safety Directorate (2015) Justice Reform Strateg y - First Stage Report, ACT
Government, 13
9
Sentencing Amendment Act 2007 ( NZ) 54B{2).
Sentencing Act 1991(VIC), s37.
10
4
VICTIMS OF CRIME
COMMISSIONER I ACT
An equivalent intensive order in Queensland does not exclude any offences specifically;
however it is limited to circumstances where the court sentences an offender to a term of
11
imprisonment for one year or less. New South Wales legislation precludes an order of this
12
type being made for child sexual offences.
The new sentencing option should exclude child sex offences. There are no specific
programs available for adults who commit sexual offences against children in the ACT. If
targeted, evidence-based ·treatment is not available for this type of offender, there can be
no utility in applying a sentencing option that has a focus on rehabilitation. The NSW Law
Reform Commission opined that sexual offences committed upon children are sufficiently
13
serious to warrant specific exclusion from community based intensive orders. Community
confidence in the new sentencing option could be seriously eroded by the inclusion of these
types of offences, given the absence of targeted treatment programs.
Victim advocates may feel strongly that a community corrections sentencing option should
not be available for other offences, including sexual offences or domestic/family violence
offences. However, removing a sentencing option designed to sit between full time
imprisonment and a suspended sentence may have the unintended consequence of
reducing the severity of the sentencing option imposed for these offences rather than
increasing it. Unlike child sexual offences, there are specific programs for sexual assault and
domestic violence offenders. Removing the application of an ICO for certain offences may
mean that the judicial officer feels restricted to imposing a suspended sentence with an
associated good behaviour order. Significantly lower supervision and/or therapeutic
requirements would result and the offender receives a more lenient sentence than they
would if an ICO were available. Attempting to prevent net widening by excluding specific
offences risks driving the severity of the sentence actually imposed down the sentencing
scale.
We need to be balanced in prescribing eligibility. We want to include offences where there
would be a benefit in requiring the perpetrator to undergo treatment and intensive
therapeutic interventions. However, the community also needs some surety that people
who commit very serious sexual and/or domestic violence offences are not given the option
to serve a sentence of imprisonment by way of a community based order. There is an
element of justice that must be delivered for these types of serious offences.
Sexual offences generally are not excluded from these sentencing options in other
Australian jurisdictions. This is because sexual offences capture a very broad range of
offending behaviour, ranging from an act of indecency, such as the touching of a breast,
through to extremely serious counts of prolonged sexual intercourse without consent
involving significant injury. For some of these less serious categories of offences there may
be utility in having ICOs available, particularly if the community has some confidence in the
effectiveness of the therapeutic element of the new sentencing option. However, there is
evidence to suggest that offenders who are convicted of more serious sexual offences are
11
12
13
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (QLD), sl 2.
Crimes {Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s66.
NSW Law Reform Commission, Sentencing Report 139 {2013), 206.
5
VICTIMS OF CRIME
COMMISSIONER I ACT
given terms of full-time imprisonment, rather than the option to serve those terms of
14
imprisonment in the community.
The ACT sentence database indicates that of the offenders charged with sexual intercourse
15
without consent between July 2012 and 31 January 2015, 78% received sentences of full
16
time imprisonment; 11% received partially suspended sentences and 11% received a fully
17
suspended sentence. No offenders received a sentence of periodic detention, community
18
service or a good behaviour order. In NSW, intensive corrections orders were not widely
used for sexual offences - with only 0.6% of intensive corrections orders imposed between
19
October 2010 and September 2011 being for sexual offences. Sexual assault offenders
who had a prior sexual offence were more likely to be sentenced to full time
20
imprisonment. Thus it would appear that the majority of matters of this type would not be
considered appropriate for a community based order.
It is an unfortunate reality of domestic violence that many victims remain in, or return to,
the abusive relationship, after charges have been laid. It is worth noting therefore, that a
blanket exclusion in applying the new community sentencing option to domestic violence
offences may mean that perpetrators will not be required to participate in the more
intensive and holistic rehabilitation inherent in an ICO. Excluding domestic violence
offenders from being required to participate in perpetrator programs, and programs
focused on addressing their other risk factors, will not assist in rehabilitating the offender or
minimising the risk of further violence to the victim.
The counter argument to this is that there have not been any specific programs for domestic
violence or family violence perpetrators, either juveniles or adults, serving community
based sentences in recent years.
ACT Corrective Services will begin a NSW Domestic Abuse Program (DAP) for people serving
community based orders on 22 June 2015. This program was designed in NSW as a
confrontational and therapeutic response to domestic violence for medium to high risk
offenders. The program runs for 10 weeks and has a total of 40 contact hours, with a zero
tolerance policy on non attendance.
Whilst the NSW DAP program has been evaluated, no findings have been published,
therefore its effectiveness is unknown. The program that preceded the DAP within the AMC
14
ACT Sentencing Database [Online at
https://actsd.judcom.nsw.gov.au/senstats/viewer/senstats.php?offvec=97044&comp=acthc
2015]
15
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s54(1).
16
ACT Sentencing Database [Online at
as at 17 March
https://actsd.iudcom.nsw.gov. au/senstats/viewer/senstats.php?offvec=97044&comp=acthcas at 17 March
2015]
17
Ibid, as at 17 March 2015.
18
ACT Sentencing Database, above n15, as at 17 March 2015.
19
Clare Ringland, 'Intensive correction orders vs other penalties: offender profiles. ' (2012) Crime and Justice
Bulletin: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice. No 163. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, p 12
2
° Clare Ringland and Don Weatherburn, 'The impace of intensive correction orders on re-offending.' {2013)
Crime and Justice Bulletin: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice. No 176. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics
and Research, p 8.
6
VICTIMS OF CRIME
COMMISSIONER I ACT
was the Family Violence Self-Change Program. When evaluated this program was found to
be only 26% compliant with the NSW minimum standards for Men's Domestic Violence
21
Behaviour Change programs.
22
Domestic violence perpetrators can be notoriously difficult to rehabilitate. Their
controlling and manipulative behaviours are often deeply entrenched. They frequently lack
any insight into their offending behaviour and resist taking responsibility for their violence.
Domestic violence perpetrator programs therefore must, as a minimum, be intensive,
evidence based, adequately resourced and regularly evaluated if we are going to ask the
community to accept an alternative to imprisonment for these types of offences.
Combination Sentences
An ICO should not be combined with a sentence of full time imprisonment. The new
sentencing option would be undermined by allowing this combination. Other jurisdictions,
such as QLD, do not permit their equivalent of an ICO to be combined with a sentence of full
23
time imprisonment. An ICO is intended to be a direct alternative to imprisonment for
offenders who would benefit from significant rehabilitation and therapeutic intervention. A
combination sentence would undermine the rehabilitative focus of the ICO and delay the
commencement of that intervention, thereby negating its effectiveness.
The parole system is already in place to manage offenders who have served a period of
imprisonment and are being transitioned into the community. Parole can be imposed with a
wide range of conditions, including requirements for participation in rehabilitation and
therapeutic intervention. ACT Corrective Services Throughcare program is also in place to
assist offenders with the transition from full time custody into the community.
Community confidence in ICO's could be eroded if the option is not able to be clearly
explained. The purpose and application of the ICO must be sufficiently clear and easily
distinguishable from existing sentencing options.
Other sentencing options should also be precluded from being combined with an ICO. There
would be no utility in allowing an ICO to be combined with a good behaviour order. The
supervision element of a good behaviour order would be subsumed by the conditions
inherent in an ICO. Similarly a suspended sentence as a combination sentence with an ICO
would be of little practical value. The remaining period of an ICO would act in much the
same way as a suspended sentence. In the event of a breach, the remaining period of the
ICO would be able to be imposed as full time imprisonment.
It would be incongruous to allow an ICO to be combined with a fine. A fine is the lowest
available sentencing option so it is not logical that it be combined with an ICO which is
intended to be a direct alternative to full time imprisonment.
21
ACT Auditor-General's Report 'Rehabilitation of male detainees at the AM C' (2015) Report 2/2015. 46.
22
Michael Salter. 'Managing Recidivism among high risk violent men' (2012) Australian Domestic and Family
Violence Clearing House. 3.
23
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (QLD), s113(1).
7
VICTIMS OF CRIME
COMMISSIONER I ACT
It may be of benefit to victims to allow an ICO to be combined with a reparation order,
requiring the offender to pay for damage caused or costs incurred. However, it would be
essential that consideration to be given to the offender's income and capacity to pay whilst
subject to the ICO prior to combining it with a reparation order.
Mandatory/core conditions
Most existing models for intensive community based sentencing options in Australia include
24
mandatory and optional conditions. Any mandatory conditions imposed in the ACT model
must be sufficient to create a meaningful distinction between the existing good behaviour
order sentencing option and the new sentencing option. The mandatory conditions imposed
must be real, significant and sufficiently clear if victims and the community in general are to
have any confidence in it.
In consideration of mandatory versus optional conditions, NSW Intensive Corrections Orders
(NSW ICO) require the offender to perform a minimum of 32 hours of community service
25
per month as a mandatory condition. Queensland provides as a mandatory condition that
26
an offender complete community service as directed.
Victoria provides community
service as an optional condition which can be imposed at the time of sentence. A judicial
officer determines the number of hours of community service to be performed by an
offender, and in some circumstances treatment and rehabilitation hours can be counted
27
tawards this requirement.
The NSW mandatory community service requirement has proved problematic in that it has
significantly limited its application. Offenders with substance abuse issues, mental health
concerns and housing instability were often deemed unsuitable for a NSW ICO because of
28
their inability to complete the community service element. The NSW Law Reform
Commission stated that 'offenders who are most likely to benefit from an alternative to fulltime imprisonment with a strong rehabilitation element are those who are least likely to be
29
assessed as suitable for an (NSW) IC0.' Community service should be included as an
optional condition, to be ordered in appropriate circumstances.
Consideration should also be given to imposing a minimum number of contact hours as a
mandatory condition. If this was included, some discretion for the period to be reduced in
exceptional circumstances would be necessary to avoid rigidity. It may be appropriate that
24
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (QLD), s114(1) and Crimes {Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014
(NSW), Reg 186.
25
Crimes {Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (NSW), Reg 186(0).
26
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (QLD), s114.
27
Sentencing Act 1991(VIC), s48CA.
28
NSW Law reform Commission, above n13, 214 Citing Law Society of NSW, Submission SE16, 8; The Shopfront
Youth Legal Centre, Submission SE28, 3; Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission SE29, 8; the Public
Defenders, Submission SE24, 11;Legal Aid NSW, Submission SE31, 11;Corrective Services NSW, Submission
SE52, 12; NSW Bar Association, Submission SE27, 6; Aboriginal Community Justice Group, Mt Druitt and
Aboriginal Legal Service, Consultation SEC19.
29
NSW Law Reform Commission, above n13, 245 citing The Shopfront Youth Legal Centre, Submission SE28, 3;
Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission SE29, 8; Law Society of NSW, Submission SE16, 8; NSW Sentencing
Council,Sentencing Trends and Practices, Annual Report 2011(2012), 31.
8
VICTIMS OF CRIME
COMMISSIONER I ACT
this discretion rest with the Court to ensure it is used sparingly. Contact hours could include
participation in treatment programs, contact with corrective services staff and/or
completion of community service. As this sentencing option is designed to sit between a
suspended sentence and full time imprisonment, there would be a reasonable expectation
that this sentencing option should impose significant obligations on the offender. A
minimum number of contact hours would promote certainty and the perception that it is a
real penalty rather than a soft' sentencing option.
1
1
A public attitudes survey conducted in Canada found that providing detailed information
about the conditions attaching to offenders' sentences resulted in a significant increase in
support for such sentences.ao Support for the order when the respondent was aware that
the offender would be subject to conditions was 27%, however this increased considerably
31
to 64% when respondents were provided with explicit conditions.
Clear, real and standardised mandatory conditions would assist both ACT Corrective
Services and ACT Policing in enforcing the orders. Such conditions must also send a clear
message to the offender from the outset about what their obligations are and what
conditions they are required to meet.
Optional conditions
The range of optional conditions available should be wide and varied to allow orders to be
tailored to address the risk factors posed by a wide variety of offenders. The Court should
also be able to prohibit offenders from certain behaviours or actions, such as prohibiting
certain offenders from residing with specified individuals and preventing contact between
offenders and victims. Optional conditions like home detention and electronic monitoring
may be useful for certain types of offenders, but should only be included if sufficient
technology and resources are available to ensure that they can be effectively monitored.
Who should
optional conditions?
All conditions should be imposed by the Court at the time of sentence. Corrective Services
assessments could provide judicial officers with up to date and relevant information about
an offender's rehabilitative needs and risk factors. This would provide certainty from the
outset, sending a clear message to the offender about their obligations and what they are
required of them if they wish to avoid full time imprisonment. Providing the community
with certainty about the obligations imposed at the time of sentence would promote
confidence in the new community based order.
Consent of the offender
Consent should be required for the new type of order to be available to the offender. If an
offender indicates from the outset that they do not intend to comply with the order it
30
Lorana Bartels, above nl,11 citing T Sanders and J Roberts, 'PublicAttitudes toward Conditional Sentencing:
Results of A National Survey' (2000) 32 Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 199.
31
Ibid.
9
VICTIMS OF CRIME
COMMISSIONER I ACT
would be a waste of time and resources to pursue an option that the Court is aware from
the outset is very likely to fail.
Timeliness and predictability of the response to a breach will be essential to ensuring the
proposed orders are a viable and effective replacement for periodic detention.
The ACT is the only Australian jurisdiction which does not have a statutory presumption that
32
the term of a suspended sentence be imposed upon a breach. Offenders who breach an
ICO by committing a further offence should be subject to a statutory presumption that the
offender is required to serve the remaining period of the sentence in full time
imprisonment. This would impose a clear, consistent and significant response for offenders
failing to comply with an order, bolstering the deterrent effect of the order and promoting
victim and community confidence in the sentencing option.
A 'swift and sure' consequence should occur for any other type of breach. Consequences of
a breach could range from the imposition of all or part of the remaining sentence in full time
custody to increased or more restrictive conditions. The type of consequence would be
dependent on the breach; however it should be clear that there will be significant
consequences for all breaches.
Research has been under taken in the United States into the effectiveness of probation
33
enforcement programs. The Hawaii Opportunity with Probation Enforcement (HOPE)
program was created in 2004 and has subsequently been replicated in a number of other
states. The focus of these programs is on a swift and sharp response to the breaches of
orders with offenders automatically receiving a short term of imprisonment for all
34
breaches. Evaluation of the HOPE program suggested significant benefits and reductions
35
in breaches when a swift and sharp response was implemented.
Consistent with the above approach, the Court is the most appropriate forum for dealing
with breaches as offenders in breach of their conditions could immediately be brought
before the Co1,1rt. The Supreme, Magistrates and Childrens Courts all deal with bail matters
on an almost daily basis. The duty judge in the Supreme Court, the A2 list Magistrate and
the Childrens Court Magistrate are already positioned to deal with those matters at short
notice and offenders breaching the new sentencing option could be dealt with in those lists.
If this is agreed, the Court would be in a position to deal with matters very quickly ensuring
a timely response, promoting perpetrator accountability and public confidence in the
sentencing option. If the breach did not activate a full time term of imprisonment, the judicial
officer would be able to alter the order by adding conditions or additional requirements to
the order.
32
ACT Law Reform Advisory Council,A report on suspended sentences in the ACT, ACT Law Reform Advisory
Council, Canberra 2010.
33
Lorana Bartels, above nl, 18-28.
34
Lorana Bartels, above nl, 18- 28.
35
Lorana Bartels, above nl,26.
10
VICTIMS OF CRIME
COMMISSIONER I ACT
36
The approach in NSW refers breaches to their equivalent of the Sentence Administration
Board {SAB}, however it is worth noting that in NSW that board sits daily, which is not the
practice in the ACT.
The First Stage report highlighted a proposal for dealing with breaches based on a two tier
system divided between the Sentence Administration Board {SAB} and the Courts, with
breaches initially going before the SAB and more serious breaches being referred to the
Court. I do not support this approach. I am concerned that it would imply that minor
breaches will be tolerated and incur no real consequences, undermining the validity of the
new sentencing option. It may also cause unnecessary delays and may result in
inconsistencies in the way sentences are dealt with in the two forums. A clear, quick and
consistent approach to the enforcement of breaches is vital.
Variation/ca ncellation
I would support an option for ACT Corrective Services to apply to a Court
discharge as this is an accountable and transparent process.
for an early
The new sentencing option should also be sufficiently flexible to allow a reduction in the
intensity of conditions to provide positive reinforcement for offenders who have
demonstrated progress.
There should also be a capacity for an offender to apply for an extension of an ICO, where
circumstances outside an offender 1s control (such as illness or injury} prevent completion of
the order within the relevant time period.
John Hinchey
22 June 2015
36
NSW Law Reform Commission, above n13, 247.
11