Return to normal view

Abolition of Suspended Sentences

20 Oct 2005

The Sentencing Advisory Council is recommending the abolition of suspended sentences and the introduction of a new range of intermediate sentencing orders.

The Council today released its interim report on suspended sentences recommending a series of far-reaching reforms to Victoria's sentencing system.

Council Chair, Professor Arie Freiberg, said that the Council was keen to allow all persons with an interest in sentencing issues the opportunity to comment on the Council's provisional conclusions and draft recommendations. The Council hopes to present its final report to the Attorney-General, the Hon Rob Hulls MP, late in 2005.

"Responses to the Council's Discussion paper and the consultation process led us to conclude that merely tinkering with suspended sentences would fail to resolve some of the key concerns which emerged" said Professor Freiberg.

He noted that although strong support for retaining and reforming suspended sentences by allowing courts to add conditions had been expressed in consultations, the Council was concerned that this would risk creating more problems than it would solve.

"Grafting conditions onto suspended sentences would not address the more fundamental problem that while the law treats suspended sentences as if they are a prison sentence, the community simply doesn't buy it."

"A clear message from the consultations was that sentencing orders should 'mean what they say' and that 'prison' should mean an actual period of detention in prison."

The Council was also concerned that introducing conditional suspended sentences would be confusing because of the overlap with other conditional orders already in the sentencing hierarchy.

"The Council's proposals are intended to streamline and modernise existing middle range orders, and provide courts with greater flexibility to tailor orders to offences and offenders."

The Council also took on board widespread concern that offenders sentenced to a suspended sentence have no restrictions placed on their liberty, and do not have to do anything other than refrain from committing further offences during the order. Under the new orders proposed, all offenders serving an order in the community would have to comply with core reporting and notification requirements for the duration of the order, at a minimum.

Professor Freiberg acknowledged that the changes might require some shifts in thinking, but said that the proposals would have many benefits, including increasing community understanding and confidence in sentencing and providing the courts with a credible and flexible suite of sentencing options.

The new sentencing orders proposed are:

an imprisonment plus release order - an order of up to 3 years duration made up of up to 12 months imprisonment followed by a release into the community under conditions;

a correction and supervision order - an order of up to 3 years duration served by an offender in the community which would allow courts to mix and match a range of conditions including restraints on liberty, community work, supervision, treatment or other program conditions; and

a youth correction and supervision order - a conditional order of up to 18 months which would be tailored to the needs and circumstances of young offenders.

The report also recommends expanding the power to defer sentencing by extending it to the higher courts, making it available for persons of any age and increasing the maximum period of deferral from 6 to 12 months.

The Council will accept submissions on its interim recommendations until 30 November 2005.

Professor Freiberg encouraged all those with an interest in sentencing to let the Council know their views on its proposals.