Minister in retreat on fixed jail terms

The NT A-G has apologised to police for claiming they supported ending mandatory sentencing for domestic violence.

NT ­Attorney-General Natasha Fyles.

The NT ­Attorney-General has been forced to apologise to the Territory’s police force after publicly misrepresenting its position on the removal of controversial mandatory sentencing laws for domestic violence offences.

Natasha Fyles will write to the NT Police Commissioner, Reece Kershaw, and the Police Association apologising for her claim in a June speech that the force supported the removal of mandatory seven-day jail terms for offenders who broke domestic violence ­orders. She will also write to the chief executive of her own department asking that a 2016 government review, which was the source of her public claims, be corrected, a spokeswoman said.

The public reversal comes after Ms Fyles was contacted by The Australian, which is running a week-long series on the case of Zak Grieve, who was sentenced to a mandatory life sentence in 2013.

“It has come to our attention that claims we may have made about mandatory sentencing might be incorrect,” a spokeswoman for Ms Fyles said.

During her speech to a legal conference, Ms Fyles said her government was reviewing the current mandatory sentencing regime, in which politicians dictate how judges punish a wide range of crimes.

“I am focused on reducing ­incarceration rates and reducing reoffending through evidence-based policy,” she said.

“This requires reconsidering all aspects of the justice system … Mandatory sentencing obviously falls within that system.”

Ms Fyles highlighted the 2016 government review that considered calls to abolish the system of mandatory seven-day jail terms for repeat domestic offenders. Advocates say these laws disproportionately affect indigenous people and can leave families without a source of income when the breadwinner is sent to jail.

“A submission from the NT Police … supported the … recommendation against mandatory sentencing,” Ms Fyles said.

“As a government we must consider whether the mandatory sentencing laws, which are designed to punish perpetrators, could in fact be causing increased harm to victims of family and domestic violence.”

Mandatory sentencing laws, which are in place in various forms in most states and territories, are controversial in the NT where different versions of the laws have been introduced and repealed repeatedly since 1997.

In Grieve’s case, the sentencing judge found the 25-year-old did not physically take part in the murder of which he was found guilty. Despite this, judge Dean Mildren said he was compelled to give Grieve a mandatory minimum 20-year sentence. “I take no pleasure in this outcome,” Justice Mildren told the court. “It is the fault of the minimum mandatory sentencing provisions, which ­inevitably bring about injustice.”

Earlier this month, the NT government scrapped a system introduced by its predecessor of alcohol mandatory treatment ­orders. These meant anyone picked up by police three times within two months for being drunk faced months of compulsory rehabilitation while in ­detention. Like other mandatory sentencing laws, these had been criticised for disproportionately affecting indigenous people.

David Woodroffe, principal legal officer with the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Service, said mandatory sentencing offences represented about two-thirds of its workload. There was no evidence the laws had reduced the incidence of domestic violence, he said, while sending the ­offender to jail could leave the victim’s family without income.

“So what you see is a cycle of reoffending and it’s not a way to deal with the problem of domestic violence,” Mr Woodroffe said.