Evidence mounting against mandatory jail terms, Labor says

Tasmania’s Attorney-General has been urged to abandon the government’s third attempt at introducing mandatory jail terms for child sex offenders. HERE’S WHY >>

LABOR has called on Attorney-General Elise Archer to abandon the government’s third attempt at introducing mandatory jail terms for child sex offenders.

Opposition leader Rebecca White’s comments came after a scathing dismissal of the concept from the Supreme Court of Victoria — and a warning from the Tasmanian Director of Public Prosecutions it would lead to more victims having to relive their traumatic experiences in court.

The government is making its fourth attempt since 2014 to pass laws to increase the minimum tariff for serious sexual offending.

The Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Sentencing) Bill before state parliament provides for a mandatory jail terms of between two and four years for a range of sexual offences involving children.

Labor has proposed lifting maximum sentences instead. Ms White said the case against mandatory sentences was building.

“Our expectation is that the Premier is going to listen to the evidence provided to the Commission of Inquiry and use that to inform government policy, including the evidence that was given by the DPP,” she said.

“The evidence demonstrated both to the Commission of Inquiry and through other reports that have been received by the government demonstrate that minimum mandatory sentences can put victim-survivors through more stress and trauma by requiring them to go to trial to provide evidence against the person who’s been accused of crime.”

Director of Public Prosecutions Daryl Coates SC told the Commission of Inquiry the legislation inevitably would lead to more offenders pleading not guilty, more trials and more victims having to give evidence.

Minister for corrections Elise Archer at the new Southern Remand Centre. Picture: Chris Kidd

“If the scheme is brought in, as sure as night follows day, defence counsel will say, ‘If you’re going to plead that aggravation, we’re going to trial’,” he said.

“And then we’ll have to say to the complainants, ’If they’re going to say that, you’re going to have to give evidence’.”

Attorney-General Elise Archer there had to be strong mandatory minimum penalties for such terrible crimes.

“Whilst I appreciate there are differing views on mandatory sentencing within the legal profession, importantly our policy is overwhelmingly backed by the community and victims’ support groups, the latter being personally in touch with the reality and consequences of these abhorrent crimes,” she said.

“Unless this reform occurs, the sad truth is that convicted serious child sex offenders can currently escape prison entirely for heinous crimes such as the rape of a child under 17 or for persistent sexual abuse of a child (or young person) where there are circumstances of aggravation.

In a decision handed down last week, the Victorian Court of Appeal described mandatory minimum sentences as “wrong in principle”.

‘In our view, mandatory sentencing reveals a profound misunderstanding of where the community’s best interests lie, especially in the sentencing of young offenders,” said Justice Chris Maxwell and acting Justice Michael Terry Forrest in their joint decision in a carjacking case.

‘Sentencing courts are much better equipped, and much better placed, than legislators to determine what type and length of sentence will satisfy the sentencing objectives in a particular case.”

Follow @DavidJKillick