Changes to mandatory sentencing laws floated in 18-month review

The State Opposition has slammed the recommendations of a report that called for a review of mandatory sentencing.

THE State Opposition has hit out at recommendations today made by the Queensland’s peak sentencing advisory body, saying proposed changes to mandatory sentencing would prioritise offenders over victims.

The Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council’s report into community-based sentencing orders, imprisonment and parole recommended “one size fits all” mandatory sentencing laws should be reviewed, saying they currently create injustices and discourage guilty pleas.

Push for mandatory sentencing for hit-and-run killers in Queensland

Police Union call for mandatory sentencing for cop car rammings

The report also put forward a proposal to gauge community support for home detention and introduce new penalty called a community correction order to subsume the current sentencing options of probation and community service.

Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington said the report, authored by the statutory body, was “Labor’s latest blueprint for going soft on crime and deal with massive prison overcrowding”.

She said home detention would allow crooks to play video games, rather than serve jail time for their crimes.

“Criminals shouldn’t be able to sit at home and play Xbox with absolutely no consequences for their actions,” Ms Frecklington said.

“Handing out get-out-of-jail free cards won’t solve Labor’s crime crisis and will put community safety at risk.”

Meanwhile, shadow attorney-general David Janetzki said scrapping mandatory sentenced could mean murderers, criminal gang leaders and serial rapists receive lighter sentences.

“Any sentencing review needs to consider the views of victims and loved ones of those who have lost their lives,” he said.

“We already have serious offenders committing crimes while on bail or parole – our laws need to be tougher, not weaker.”

Queensland Attorney-General Yvette D'Ath

The 18-month review, commissioned by Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath, examined community-based sentencing, jail terms and parole options.

It concluded mandatory sentencing should be reviewed because it created injustice and discouraged guilty pleas.

Among the report’s 74 recommendations was a call to hold a separate review into mandatory sentencing, arguing it treated every offender and offence the same.

There are currently a range of Queensland offences that draw a mandatory sentence – from murder to weapons offences to graffiti vandalism.

In the case of murder, offenders are sentenced to life with a minimum non parole period of 20 years.

That period is increased to 30 years if there is more than one victim, or if the person has previously been convicted of murder, or 25 years if the victim is a police officer.

“The council’s position is that, in accordance with the evidence, mandatory sentencing does not work either in achieving the purposes of sentencing in the Act, or in reducing recidivism,” the report said.

“This is because, as a matter of principle, it assumes that every offence and every offender are the same, which is patently not the case.”

A submission from the Queensland Police Union argued mandatory sentencing should remain in some cases.

“The QPU believes there is a place for mandatory sentencing,” the union stated.

“It has long been QPU policy to seek Government commitment to introducing mandatory imprisonment for assaults on police officers and emergency service workers, including hospital staff and professionals.

“(However) the QPU recognises there will be cases where the imposition of a mandatory sentence would create a real injustice.”

The QPU suggested an “exceptional circumstances” provision could be added to mandatory sentences.

The report also found that mandatory sentencing contributes to the growing problem of prison overcrowding.

“The current rate of imprisonment is higher than at any other time since 1900,” the report found.

“After remaining relatively steady between 2008 and 2012, prisoner numbers in Queensland increased substantially between 2012 and 2018.

“The female imprisonment rate also grew considerably between 2008 and 2018.”

Another opponent of mandatory sentencing was the Law Council of Australia, which argued it “undermines community confidence in judges to administer justice and deliver appropriate sentencing outcomes”.

The report also discussed the viability of the Serious Violent Offender scheme, which requires any criminal declared as such to serve 80 per cent of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole.

This is automatically the case if the offender is sentences to 10 years prison or more.

The report said this has led to judges giving a head sentence of less than 10 years so they can use their discretion in setting a non-parole period.

“A mandatory non parole period can also have consequences for the community, as offenders subject to these regimes will spend less of their sentence being supervised in the community and therefore have less time to receive supervision while they reintegrate into the community,” the report states.

QSAC chair John Robertson said he believed mandatory sentencing - from murder down - needed to be reviewed.

He said there were always areas of grey in the law.

“Inevitability, mandatory sentencing leads to individual injustice,” he said.

“If, for example, you introduced a mandatory punishment for killing a child unlawfully, of, say, ten years, then, you’re faced with this dilemma - we’re faced with this dilemma as a community.

“An actual case of a young mother, highly stressed, with three small children, no support from the father of the children, under all sorts of socio-economic and other pressures, puts the baby in the bath, turns away for a moment to have a cigarette, the baby drowns.

“The woman is charged - and was convicted - of manslaughter by criminal negligence. So she is charged with unlawfully killing her child.”

He compared it to the case of a violent stepfather who spent months torturing a small child to death.

“The offender, who is the stepfather, this is a real case, who tortures a small child to death over a period of five to six months causing untold suffering,” he said.

“Do we really say, as a civilised society, that both of those offenders should get a minimum of ten years?”

Originally published as Changes to mandatory sentencing laws floated in 18-month review