State Government to review discounted sentencing for guilty pleas after controversial court cases
SENTENCING discount laws that can almost halve jail terms for some of our worst self-confessed criminals — including killers — will be reviewed by the State Government following public outcry over controversial cases.
- 2010: Labor Government announces sentence discount laws
- Ice-fuelled double murderer given 26-year non-parole period
- Hoon who killed Lucy Paveley wants 40 per cent sentence discount
- Hillier triple murderer’s non-parole upped to 36 years
- David Penberthy: Hoons don’t deserve rewards for guilty pleas
SENTENCING discount laws that can almost halve jail terms for some of our worst self-confessed criminals will be reviewed by the State Government.
It will scrutinise the early guilty plea legislation, which was introduced six years ago, following several recent controversies.
They include the cases of Hillier triple murderer Steven Graham Peet, Millicent double-killer Bo Olsson and the impending sentencing of the hoon driver who killed Lucy Paveley.
On Sunday, Attorney-General Vickie Chapman said there was “clearly a need” to address community concerns about “large sentencing discounts” being given by the courts.
“There is a time and place for guilty plea discounting to work in our judicial system … they can relieve the burden on victims of prolonged and tedious legal proceedings,” she said.
“They often avoid the uncertainty of a trial where the offender may be found to be not guilty, and therefore face no jail time.
“However, several major cases have highlighted the need for review, and this marks the next step in reforming our justice system.”
Steven Egberts, grandfather of the children killed at Hillier, welcomed the review, saying it was long overdue.
“There is a horrific line-up of under-sentencing not only in SA, but in courts across the whole country,” he said.
“There are cases with sentences that just make your jaw drop and leave you wondering how that term could have possibly been imposed.
“When you start talking about giving discounts within those sorts of sentences, the public rightly wonders what it is all going to come to.”
In 2010, former Attorney-General John Rau announced reforms that provided offenders with sentencing discounts of up to 40 per cent.
The amount they received was mandated by when in the court process they entered guilty pleas, down to a 10 per cent reduction for doing so on the day of trial.
At the time, Mr Rau said the “most heinous offenders” would not benefit from the reforms, which were designed to slash decades-long court backlogs.
That has not, however, been the case in court in the years since, drawing ire from traumatised families and criticism that community expectations were not being met.
On Sunday, Ms Chapman said the reform came into effect in 2012 and was reviewed by former Supreme Court Justice Brian Martin in 2015.
“There have been a number of legislative changes since then, and there is clearly a need to conduct a fresh review and address the community’s concerns,” she said.
“The Martin report noted a number of shortcomings and room for improvement for guilty pleas, and stated it was too early to discuss whether (the reforms) had worked.
“Despite these findings, no further report was ever commissioned by the former Labor Government.”
Ms Chapman said the Government had “listened to the concerns” of the public, prompting its announcement of the review.
“This Government is prioritising community safety and the right that every person has to feel safe in their home and community,” she said.
Mr Egberts said the three-year sentencing discount given to his grandchildren’s killer, Steven Graham Peet, was an insult to their memories.
Peet confessed only after delaying his case for five months with baseless claims of mental disassociation.
“There was no sense, in his case, of this being a person deserving of a discount … he dragged it out, he prolonged our suffering,” he said.
“We just could not see where the word ‘discount’ came into the equation, given his behaviour.
“I can understand that, in some cases, there is a benefit to discounts for early pleas but not when the crimes are that serious, or when the offender’s behaviour is not deserving.”
Analysis — How haste makes waste and trauma for victims
Sean Fewster
IN February 2009, during a District Court hit-run death case, the presiding judge questioned legislation governing the offender’s eventual sentence.
The prosecutor, conceding the law was less than clear, suggested it “might be a case where the legislation has been rushed through, not thought through”.
The Rann Government was in power at the time and, as can be imagined, was less than happy with the prosecutor’s chutzpah, ordering him to retract it.
Under pressure from both the Attorney-General and Director of Public Prosecutions of the time — Michael Atkinson and Stephen Pallaras — he duly recanted.
Then Labor spin doctor, now Member for Badcoe, Jayne Stinson jumped straight into action and demanded the media “ensure” it publish the prosecutor’s capitulation.
Yet for all the fuss he caused, that prosecutor had perfectly articulated Labor’s approach to law-and-order lawmaking.
No one can doubt Mr Atkinson and his successor, John Rau, had their hearts in the right place and were working diligently to make SA a safer place for everyone.
Such ambition matches poorly with haste, however, particularly when the potential consequences of immediate action are not accounted for in the design process.
The guilty plea discount legislation is another example of this phenomenon.
On paper, the idea of giving offenders up to 40 per cent off their jail time in exchange for full confessions is a good one.
Fewer trials mean reduced court logjam, less expense for the taxpayer and — most importantly of all — less exposure to trauma for victims.
At least, it should mean all those things. In practice, the success of the legislation has been debatable.
While the logjam has eased and victims spared trials, judges still must hear all the facts to weigh up the potential discount before arriving at their sentences.
That means victims are not avoiding hearing horrific, harrowing details of crimes — instead, they’re being exposed to them, often without warning, in intense court sessions lasting several hours.
On top of that, they are left with the sickening realisation that the person who ruined their lives will be out of jail in almost half the time they should have to serve, due to that same hearing.
While there is remains great merit in Mr Rau’s original concept, its execution and implementation has left a lot to be desired.
It is heartening, then, that the current State Government is not simply throwing out or abolishing the discount laws but, rather, subjecting them to a review.
What is most crucial now is that the review hear not only from the usual suspects — lawyers, judges and civil libertarians — but from victims.
They who matter most in this are ignored far too often.