Supreme Court judges refuse to sit on Daniel Andrews’ sentencing council
SUPREME Court judges say they won’t be told how to do their job and refuse to sit on a sentencing council aimed at increasing jail time.
Law & Order
Don't miss out on the headlines from Law & Order. Followed categories will be added to My News.
SUPREME Court judges say they won’t be told how to do their job and refuse to sit on a sentencing council aimed at increasing jail time.
It is a major slapdown to the Andrews Government policy aimed at giving Victorians a greater say on sentencing and boosting public confidence in the judiciary. But Victoria Police and the Office of Public Prosecutions backed the plan, with the pair urging courts to follow the guidelines.
In snubbing the policy, the Supreme Court argued the Sentencing Guidelines Council was a “substantial departure” from practices.
CRIMINALS HIT WITH EXTRA TIME AS SOFT SENTENCES THROWN OUT
MANDATORY JAIL TERMS BETTER THAN SENTENCING COUNCIL
JUDGES SNUB ANDREWS’ GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING GUIDELINES PLAN
“Being a member of a Sentencing Guidelines Council is considered to be outside the appropriate functions of a member of the court,” the judges said. “It does not sit comfortably with the role of the judiciary and the judges of the court have made it clear they would not be prepared to sit on such a body while continuing to serve on the bench.”
The judges said their “human experience” and judicial expertise made them the best qualified to hand out sentences tailored to individuals.
The Sentencing Advisory Council, which conducted the review into the guidelines council, said it had now been forced to make a recommendation the guidelines council consist exclusively of non-judicial members, including retired judges.
“The council maintains its view that a sentencing guidelines council with a majority of members who are sitting judicial officers would likely provide the best policy outcome,” the council’s recommendations said.
“However, the council also acknowledges that it cannot make recommendations that are incapable of implementation.”
The recommendations also reveal the guidelines council would be able to withstand constitutional challenge.
But after the Supreme Court chose not to be part of the council, further delays are expected as draft sentencing guidelines will now be drawn up and put out for further consultation before the council begins.
The OPP said should a court deviate from the guideline “in the interests of justice”, judges and magistrates should be forced to provide reasons why they didn’t apply the guidelines.
But it went further and submitted the Court of Appeal should not retain its powers to give guideline judgments.
“The guidelines should be consistent. We respectfully consider that it would be difficult for the council and the Court of Appeal to produce consistent guidelines,” the submission read.
In his submission to the policy, Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton said the guidelines should overrule existing common law precedents.
Premier Daniel Andrews and Attorney-General Martin Pakula announced the plan about a year ago. The plan was for judges to sit on the council with community members and help develop sentences better in line with community expectations.