Former DPP Stephen Pallaras says judges should tally victims’ loss and add it to offenders’ prison time
THE magnitude of loss suffered by victims of crime should be weighed up and added on to an offender’s sentence, the state’s former top prosecutor says, in the wake of the Nicole Tucker crash death case.
- Killer teen hoon could be free in just 10 months
- Family’s grief: ‘You should have died, not our Nicole’
- Tributes: Nicole Tucker a ‘loving, selfless mother’
- AG: Case highlights inadequacy of sentencing laws
THE magnitude of emotional, physical and financial loss suffered by victims of crime should be weighed up and added on to an offender’s sentence, the state’s former top prosecutor says.
Stephen Pallaras QC has told The Advertiser there is little hope the lenient penalty given to the teen hoon who killed Nicole Tucker in a fiery car crash will ever be overturned.
The former Director of Public Prosecutions said the decision, while controversial, was not wrong under existing state law — meaning that law needed to change.
He said victims’ suffering should have greater priority when a judge came to calculate an offender’s prison term.
“In a case like this you have a family woman, totally innocent, losing her life through no fault of her own and leaving behind children, a husband and relatives who relied on her,” he said.
“What judges currently don’t consider, and what’s relevant to sentencing, is the magnitude of the loss involved to those people left behind and how much their lives have been changed.
“Insurance companies can make such calculations, and judges make them in claims for damages all the time — why can’t it be done in sentencing to assuage people’s pain?
“That’s what we’re talking about here, people with an extreme sense of loss that the justice system doesn’t seem to recognise or laughs in the face of with 18-month non-parole periods.”
The boy, 16, faced a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for offences including aggravated causing death by dangerous driving, and was to be penalised as an adult.
However, that did not free Judge Joanne Tracey from Young Offenders Act’s requirement she prioritise the boy’s “care, correction and guidance” over punishment.
She jailed him for more than three years, but he will be eligible to seek release on parole in April next year.
Mrs Tucker’s devastated family will meet with prosecutors, who have 21 days to file an appeal, next week.
On Friday, Attorney-General John Rau SC said the case highlights the inadequacies of current criminal sentencing laws.
He said his sentencing reform Bill would address those problems.
Mr Pallaras, however, said he did not share the MP’s confidence.
He agreed the way forward lay in reform, but questioned whether Mr Rau’s bill — targeted toward adult offenders — would have any affect upon future teen hoons.
He saids victims of crime needed genuine legislative change.
“People used to say to me ‘what do you mean my loved one’s life was only worth 18 months?’ and that’s a natural reaction,” he said.
“When you go to court, what you are expecting is justice but you are not going to get that — you are going to get a decision under the law.
“No one comes out thinking ‘that was a just result’ ... maybe (consideration of loss) might help bring sentencing in line with community expectations.
“If you can identify those expectations and encapsulate them somewhere in the system, then you are getting somewhere.”
Mr Pallaras also doubted an appeal would succeed.
“Judge Tracey accounted for all the things that needed to be mentioned when coming to a balanced sentence, and it can’t be said she omitted anything,” he said.
“The first thing the Court of Criminal Appeal asks is ‘where is the mistake?’ and, other than the result in this matter, where is the legal mistake?
“Not agreeing with the result isn’t a ground for appeal.”