Media Release
Embargoed until 01:00AM AEST Thursday 2 October 2014
The Sentencing Advisory Council today released Exploring the Relationship between Community-Based Order Conditions and Reoffending. The report examines community-based orders (CBOs) imposed by the Magistrates’ Court in the two years to June 2009. It examines:
- how different combinations of CBO conditions were used
- how offender and offence characteristics differed between offenders who received supervision as a CBO condition and those who did not.
The report identifies a correlative link between the imposition of supervision as a CBO condition and an increased risk of reoffending.
The CBO was replaced by the community correction order (CCO) in Victoria in January 2012, but the interaction between community-based sentencing and reoffending is still relevant. Research by the Council suggests that CCOs are being used by magistrates in a similar way to CBOs.
The Council found the overall reoffending rate for offenders sentenced to a CBO was 42.6%. The report also found that:
- unpaid community work, assessment/treatment, and supervision were the most common conditions attached to CBOs
- reoffending was higher (49.5%) following the imposition of CBOs that had supervision as a condition than following CBOs without supervision (36.9%)
- when separated into groups according to whether or not supervision was a condition, reoffending was more likely for those offenders who:
- were sentenced for multiple offences
- had received a recent prior sentence
- were male
- were under 25 years at the time of sentencing
- having supervision as a CBO condition was associated both with a higher rate of reoffending and with a shorter time interval between sentencing and reoffending compared with those who did not have supervision as a condition
- sentencing for reoffending by offenders who had received a CBO with supervision was generally more severe than sentencing for reoffending by offenders who had received a CBO without supervision as a condition.
This research does not indicate that supervision is ineffective. Rather, it suggests that supervision as a CBO condition was targeted to those offenders at highest risk of reoffending. These offenders were more likely to have been convicted of offences against the person, and to have been sentenced previously, including to a prior term of imprisonment.
The method the Council used for examining reoffending is consistent with the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) but differs from that used by the Productivity Commission in the Report on Government Services.
Chair of the Sentencing Advisory Council, Emeritus Professor Arie Freiberg, said 'This report will be of interest to everyone concerned to see the proper application of the new non-custodial sentencing options available to Victorian courts. It shows that the conditions attached to community orders reflect the offending history of the offenders and, therefore, their chances of reoffending.
'In measuring reoffending rates, we have used the most meaningful counting rules internationally accepted by criminologists.'
