Sentencing Trends for Robbery in the Higher Courts of Victoria 2008-09 to 2012-13

Sentencing Snapshot 152
Date of Publication: 
26 June 2014

Sentencing Snapshot no. 152 describes sentencing outcomes for the offence of robbery in the County and Supreme Courts of Victoria between 2008-09 and 2012-13.

The most recent Sentencing Snapshot for this offence is Snapshot no. 185.

You can also find statistics for this offence on SACStat.

Authored and published by the Sentencing Advisory Council
© Copyright State of Victoria, Sentencing Advisory Council, 2014

Introduction

This Sentencing Snapshot describes sentencing outcomes[1] for the offence of robbery and details the age and gender[2] of people sentenced for this offence in the County and Supreme Courts of Victoria between 2008–09 and 2012–13.[3] Except where otherwise noted, the data represent sentences imposed at first instance.

A person who uses or threatens to use force in order to steal is guilty of robbery. Robbery is an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of 1,800 penalty units. Indictable offences are more serious offences triable before a judge and jury in the County or Supreme Court of Victoria. However, robbery is an indictable offence that is triable summarily by the Magistrates’ Court if the property stolen is below a certain value, the Magistrates’ Court considers it appropriate, and the defendant consents.

Robbery was the principal offence[4] in 1.1% of cases sentenced in the higher courts between 2008–09 and 2012–13.

People sentenced

From 2008–09 to 2012–13, 109 people were sentenced in the higher courts for a principal offence of robbery. These people are the focus of this Snapshot. However, an additional 166 people were sentenced in cases that involved robbery but where some other offence was the principal offence. In total, 275 people were sentenced in the higher courts for 402 charges of robbery.

Figure 1 shows the number of people sentenced for the principal offence of robbery by gender. Over the five years depicted, the majority of those sentenced were men (90.8% or 99 of the 109 people), including 19 of the 21 people sentenced in 2012–13.

Figure 1: The number of people sentenced for robbery by gender, 2008–09 to 2012–13

  Gender    
Financial year Male Female Total
2008-09 20 4 24
2009-10 13 1 14
2010-11 22 2 24
2011-12 25 1 26
2012-13 19 2 21
Total 99 10 109

Sentence types and trends

Figure 2 shows the total number of people sentenced for robbery and the number who received an immediate custodial sentence. An immediate custodial sentence is one that involves at least some element of immediate (as opposed to wholly suspended) imprisonment or detention.[5] Over the five-year period, 66% of people were given an immediate custodial sentence. This peaked at 76% (16 of 21) in 2012–13 and was at a low of 50% (7 of 14) in 2009–10.

Figure 2: The number of people sentenced for robbery and the number who received an immediate custodial sentence, 2008–09 to 2012–13

  Sentence type    
Financial year Custodial Non-custodial Total
2008-09 15 9 24
2009-10 7 7 14
2010-11 17 7 24
2011-12 17 9 26
2012-13 16 5 21
total 72 37 109

Table 1 shows the number of people sentenced for robbery from 2008–09 to 2012–13 by the types of sentences imposed.

Over the five-year period, the majority of people sentenced for robbery received a period of imprisonment (54% or 59 of 109 people), while 15% received a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment and 9% received a community-based order.

The number of people given a sentence of imprisonment for robbery was lowest in 2009–10 (7 people or 50%) and highest during 2010–11 and 2011–12 (14 people or 56% for the two-year period).

The number of people given a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment was lowest during 2012–13 (0 people) and highest during 2009–10 (5 people).

The number of people given a community-based order was at its lowest point in 2012–13 (0 people) and highest during 2008–09 (4 people).

Table 1: The number and percentage of people sentenced for robbery by sentence type, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Sentence type 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 Total
Imprisonment 12 (50%) 7 (50%) 14 (58%) 14 (54%) 12 (57%) 59 (54%)
Wholly suspended sentence 3 (13%) 5 (36%) 4 (17%) 4 (15%) 0 (–) 16 (15%)
Community-based order 4 (17%) 2 (14%) 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 0 (–) 9 (8%)
Partially suspended sentence 3 (13%) 0 (–) 1 (4%) 3 (12%) 1 (5%) 8 (7%)
Community correction order 0 (–) 0 (–) 0 (–) 3 (12%) 4 (19%) 7 (6%)
Youth justice centre order 0 (–) 0 (–) 2 (8%) 0 (–) 2 (10%) 4 (4%)
Fine 1 (4%) 0 (–) 0 (–) 1 (4%) 0 (–) 2 (2%)
Intensive correction order 1 (4%) 0 (–) 0 (–) 0 (–) 0 (–) 1 (<1%)
Mix (intensive correction order and wholly suspended sentence) 0 (–) 0 (–) 1 (4%) 0 (–) 0 (–) 1 (<1%)
Mix (imprisonment and community correction order) 0 (–) 0 (–) 0 (–) 0 (–) 1 (5%) 1 (<1%)
Non-custodial supervision order 0 (–) 0 (–) 0 (–) 0 (–) 1 (5%) 1 (<1%)
People sentenced 24 14 24 26 21 109

Age and gender of people sentenced

Figure 3 shows the gender of people sentenced for robbery grouped by age[6] between 2008–09 and 2012–13. The average (mean) age of people sentenced for robbery was 28 years and 4 months. Men sentenced over this period were older than women (an average age of 28 years and 5 months for men compared with 27 years and 2 months for women). There were no juveniles sentenced over this period.[7]

Figure 3: The number of people sentenced for robbery by gender and age, 2008–09 to 2012–13

  Gender  
age group (years) Male Female
18-19 15 0
20 to 24 25 5
25 to 29 15 2
30 to 34 18 1
35 to 39 15 1
40 or older 11 1

Sentence types by gender

Table 2 shows the types of sentences imposed for robbery grouped by gender. As shown, a higher percentage of men received a period of imprisonment (59% compared with 10% of women). Conversely, a higher percentage of women received a community-based order (30% compared with 6% of men) and wholly suspended sentences (20% compared with 14%).

Table 2: The number and percentage of people sentenced for robbery by sentence type and gender, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Sentence type Male Female
Imprisonment 58 (59%) 1 (10%)
Wholly suspended sentence 14 (14%) 2 (20%)
Community-based order 6 (6%) 3 (30%)
Partially suspended sentence 7 (7%) 1 (10%)
Community correction order 5 (5%) 2 (20%)
Youth justice centre order 4 (4%) 0 (–)
Fine 2 (2%) 0 (–)
Intensive correction order 1 (1%) 0 (–)
Mix (intensive correction order and wholly suspended sentence) 1 (1%) 0 (–)
Mix (imprisonment and community correction order) 0 (–) 1 (10%)
Non-custodial supervision order 1 (1%) 0 (–)
People sentenced 99 10

Sentence types by age

As shown in Table 1, the two most common sentence types were imprisonment and wholly suspended sentences of imprisonment. The following analysis examines these sentence types by the offenders’ age group.

Imprisonment

As shown in Figure 4, sentences of imprisonment were most likely to be given to people aged 30–34 years (79% or 15 of the 19 people in this age group).

Conversely, sentences of imprisonment were least common for those aged under 25 years (27% or 12 of the 45 people in this age group).

Figure 4: The percentage of people who received a period of imprisonment for robbery by age group, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Age group (years) Percentage
younger than 25 26.7
25 to 29 64.7
30-34 78.9
35 or older 75.0

Wholly suspended sentences of imprisonment

As shown in Figure 5, wholly suspended sentences of imprisonment were most likely to be given to people aged under 25 years (27% or 12 of the 45 people in this age group).

Conversely, wholly suspended sentences of imprisonment were least common for those aged 30–34 years (5% or 1 of the 19 people in this age group). 

Figure 5: The percentage of people who received a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment for robbery by age group, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Age group (years) Percentage
Younger than 25 26.7
25 to 29 5.9
30-34 5.3
35 or older 7.1

Principal and total effective sentences

Two methods for describing sentence types and lengths are examined in this section. One relates to the principal sentence and examines sentences for the offence at a charge level. The other relates to the total effective sentence and examines sentences for the offence at a case level.

The principal sentence is the individual sentence imposed for the charge that is the principal offence.[8]

The total effective sentence in a case with a single charge is the principal sentence. The total effective sentence in a case with multiple charges is the sentence that results from the court ordering the individual sentences for each charge to be served concurrently (at the same time) or wholly or partially cumulatively (one after the other).

In many cases, the total effective sentence imposed on a person will be longer than the principal sentence. Principal sentences for robbery must be considered in this broader context. The following sections analyse the use of imprisonment for the offence of robbery from 2008–09 to 2012–13.

Principal sentence of imprisonment

A total of 60 people received a principal sentence of imprisonment for robbery between 2008–09 and 2012–13.

Figure 6 shows these people by length of imprisonment term. Imprisonment terms ranged from 2 months to 5 years (after adjusting for appeals, the longest imprisonment term was 4 years and 6 months), while the median length of imprisonment was 1 year, 8 months and 15 days (meaning that half of the imprisonment terms were shorter than 1 year, 8 months and 15 days and half were longer).

The most common range of imprisonment length imposed was 1 year to less than 2 years.

Expanding the analysis from principal sentences of imprisonment to all charges that received imprisonment, there were 248 charges of robbery sentenced to imprisonment between 2008–09 and 2012–13. Imprisonment lengths for robbery ranged from 8 days to 5 years while the median was 1 year and 6 months and the most common range of imprisonment length was 3 years to less than 4 years (64 charges).

Returning to principal sentences of imprisonment, as shown in Figure 7, the average (mean) length of imprisonment term imposed on people sentenced for robbery ranged from 1 year and 4 months in 2012–13 to 2 years and 6 months in 2009–10.

From 2008–09 to 2012–13, the majority of people who received a term of imprisonment for robbery were men (58 people or 96.7%). Due to the very small number of women who received imprisonment as a principal sentence for robbery (2), data on average imprisonment length by gender are not shown.

Figure 6: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for robbery by length of imprisonment term, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Imprisonment length Number
Less than 1 year 7
1 to less than 2 years 23
2 to less than 3 years 14
3 to less than 4 years 12
4 to less than 5 years 2
5 to less than 6 years 1

Figure 7: The average length of imprisonment term imposed on people sentenced for robbery, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Financial year Average length of imprisonment
2008-09 1 year and 8 months
2009-10 2 years and 6 months
2010-11 2 years and 1 months
2011-12 2 years and 0 months
2012-13 1 year and 5 months

Other offences finalised at the same hearing

Often people prosecuted for robbery face multiple charges, which are finalised at the same hearing. This section looks at the range of offences for which offenders have been sentenced at the same time as being sentenced for the principal offence of robbery.

Figure 8 shows the number of people sentenced for the principal offence of robbery by the total number of offences for which sentences were set. The number of sentenced offences per person ranged from 1 to 19, while the median was 2 offences. There were 38 people (34.9%) sentenced for the single offence of robbery. The average (mean) number of offences per person sentenced for robbery was 2.76.

Figure 8: The number of people sentenced for the principal offence of robbery by the number of sentenced offences per person, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Number of offences Number of people
1 38
2 27
3 19
4 9
5 to 9 14
10 or more 2

While Figure 8 presents the number of sentenced offences for those sentenced for robbery, Table 3 shows what the accompanying offences were. It shows the number and percentage of people sentenced for the 10 most common offences. The last column sets out the average (mean) number of offences sentenced per person. For example, 16 of the total 109 people (14.7%) also received sentences for theft. On average, they were sentenced for 1.38 counts of theft.

Table 3: The number and percentage of people sentenced for the principal offence of robbery by the most common offences that were sentenced and the average number of those offences that were sentenced, 2008–09 to 2012–13

  Offence Number % Average
1 Robbery 109 100.0 1.23
2 Theft 16 14.7 1.38
3 False imprisonment 11 10.1 1.00
4 Possess a drug of dependence 10 9.2 1.00
5 Aggravated burglary 8 7.3 1.00
6 Cause injury recklessly 6 5.5 1,17
7 Attempted armed robbery 5 4.6 1.60
8 Attempted robbery 5 4.6 1.40
9 Armed robbery 5 4.6 1.20
10 Common law assault 5 4.6 1.20
People sentenced 109 100.0 2.76

Total effective sentence of imprisonment

There were 60 people given a total effective sentence of imprisonment.[9] Figure 9 shows the number of people sentenced to imprisonment for robbery between 2008–09 and 2012–13 by length of total effective sentence. The length of total effective sentences ranged from 2 months to 8 years (after adjusting for appeals, the longest total effective imprisonment term was 5 years and 6 months), while the median total effective length of imprisonment was 2 years (meaning that half of the total effective sentence lengths were below 2 years and half were above).

The most common range of total effective imprisonment length was 1 year to less than 2 years (21 people).

Figure 9: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for robbery by length of total effective imprisonment term, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Total effective imprisonment length Number of people
Less than one year 6
1 to less than 2 years 21
2 to less than 3 years 11
3 to less than 4 years 13
4 to less than 5 years 5
5 to less than 6 years 3
6 to less than 7 years 0
7 to less than 8 years 0
8 to less than 9 years 1

Non-parole period

When a person is sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment of one year or more, the court has the discretion to fix a non-parole period. Where a non-parole period is fixed, the person must serve that period before becoming eligible for parole. Where no non-parole period is set by the court, the person must serve the entirety of the imprisonment term.

Under section 11(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), if a court sentences an offender to imprisonment in respect of more than one offence, the non-parole period set by the court must be in respect of the total effective sentence of imprisonment that the offender is liable to serve under all the sentences imposed. In many cases, the non-parole period will be longer than the individual principal sentence for robbery. Sentences and non-parole periods must be considered in this broader context.

Of the 60 people who were sentenced to imprisonment for robbery, 54 were eligible to have a non-parole period fixed.[10] Of these people, 48 were given a non-parole period (89%).[11] Figure 10 shows the number of people sentenced to imprisonment for robbery between 2008–09 and 2012–13 by length of non-parole period. Non-parole periods ranged from 15 days to 5 years and 6 months (after adjusting for appeals, the longest non-parole period was 3 years), while the median length of the non-parole period was 1 year and 4 months (meaning that half of the non-parole periods were below 1 year and 4 months and half were above).

The most common range of non-parole period imposed was 1 year to less than 2 years (20 people).

Figure 10: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for robbery by length of non-parole period, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Non-parole period Number of people
Less than 1 year 14
1 to less than 2 years 20
2 to less than 3 years 8
3 to less than 4 years 5
4 to less than 5 years 0
5 to less than 6 years 1
No non-parole period 10

Total effective sentences of imprisonment and non-parole periods

From 2008–09 to 2012–13, the average (mean) length of total effective sentences for all people ranged from 1 year and 10 months in 2012–13 to 3 years and 6 months in 2009–10. Over the same period, the average length of non-parole periods ranged from 1 year in 2012–13 to 2 years and 1 month in 2009–10.

Over the five-year period, the majority of people who received a total effective sentence of imprisonment for robbery were male (58 of 60 people or 97%).

Due to the very small number of women who received a total effective sentence of imprisonment and a non-parole period (2), data on average total effective sentence length and non-parole period by gender are not shown.

Figure 11: The average total effective sentence and the average non-parole period imposed on people sentenced to imprisonment for robbery, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Financial year Total effective sentence length Non-parole period
2008-09 2y, 1m 1y, 4m
2009-10 3y, 2m 2y, 1m
2010-11 2y, 9m 1y, 8m
2011-12 2y, 6m 1y, 7m
2012-13 1y, 6m 1y, 0m

Total effective sentence of imprisonment by non-parole period

While Figures 9 and 10 present the lengths of the total effective sentences and non-parole periods separately, Figure 12 combines the two methods of describing sentence lengths in the one diagram. It shows the total effective sentence and non-parole period for robbery for each individual person.

The centre of each ‘bubble’ on the chart represents a combination of imprisonment length and non-parole period, while the size of the bubble reflects the number of people who received that particular combination. Sentence lengths and non-parole periods that are longer than one year are rounded down to the nearest year of imprisonment, while sentence lengths and non-parole periods of less than one year are grouped into the ‘<1 year’ category. For example, a sentence length of 2 years and 6 months would be included as a sentence length of 2 years for the purposes of Figure 12.

As shown, the most common combination of imprisonment length and non-parole period imposed was 1 year with a non-parole period of less than 1 year (13 people – as represented by the largest bubble on the chart). The length of imprisonment ranged from 2 months with no non-parole period to 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months. After adjusting for appeals, the longest combination decreased to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years.

Figure 12: The number of people sentenced to imprisonment for robbery by the total effective sentence and the non-parole period imposed, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Total effective sentence category Non-parole period category Total
Less than one year No NPP 6
1 to less than 2 years No NPP 3
1 to less than 2 years less than 1 year 13
1 to less than 2 years 1 to less than 2 years 4
2 to less than 3 years No NPP 1
2 to less than 3 years less than 1 year 1
2 to less than 3 years 1 to less than 2 years 9
3 to less than 4 years 1 to less than 2 years 6
3 to less than 4 years 2 to less than 3 years 7
4 to less than 5 years 2 to less than 3 years 1
4 to less than 5 years 3 to less than 4 years 4
5 to less than 6 years 1 to less than 2 years 1
5 to less than 6 years 3 to less than 4 years 1
8 to less than 9 years 5 to less than 6 years 1
People sentenced   58

Note: No NPP refers to no non-parole period.

Suspended sentences of imprisonment

There were 24 people given a suspended sentence of imprisonment as their total effective sentence. Of these, 16 people had their prison sentence wholly suspended and 8 received a partially suspended sentence of imprisonment. Figure 13 shows the number of people with a suspended sentence of imprisonment as their total effective sentence by the suspended sentence type and length of sentence. The green ‘bubbles’ to the left of the vertical axis show the lengths of the wholly suspended sentences, while the grey bubbles to the right of the vertical axis show the combination of total imprisonment length and the suspended period for those sentenced to a partially suspended sentence. The size of the bubble reflects the number of people who received either the wholly or the partially suspended prison term. Imprisonment lengths and suspended periods that end part way through a month are rounded down to the nearest complete month. For example, a wholly suspended sentence of 6 months and 12 days would be included as a sentence length of 6 months for the purposes of Figure 13.

Wholly suspended sentence lengths ranged from 3 months to 2 years and 8 months. The most common wholly suspended sentence length was 1 year (5 people – as represented by the largest green bubble on the chart).

Partially suspended sentences ranged from 6 months’ imprisonment with 3 months suspended to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment with 11 months suspended. Each combination of imprisonment length and suspension was equally distributed (1 person each – as represented by the grey bubbles on the chart).

Figure 13: The number of people given a wholly or partially suspended sentence of imprisonment for robbery by sentence type and length, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Wholly suspended sentence length (months) No. of people
3 2
4 1
6 1
9 1
12 5
18 2
21 1
26 1
27 1
32 1

Partially suspended sentences    
Imprisonment sentence length (months) Suspended period (months) No. of people
6 4 1
10 7 1
12 8 1
15 8 1
18 9 1
18 10 1
18 14 1
20 11 1

Fines

This analysis includes all fines that were imposed for cases where robbery was the principal offence. Fines were imposed on 12 people, of whom 11 were men.

The fine amount imposed ranged from $50 to $2,000, with a median of $375 (meaning that half of the values fell below $375 and half of the values were above $375).

The average (mean) fine amount was $627.80.

Figure 14: The number of people who received a fine for robbery by fine amount, 2008–09 to 2012–13

Fine amount No. of people
$0-$199 3
$200-$399 3
$400-$599 3
$600-$799 0
$800-$999 0
$1000-$1199 0
$1200-$1399 0
$1400-$1599 1
$1600+ 2

Community correction orders

Community correction orders were introduced in early 2012 to replace community-based orders and intensive correction orders. A feature of community correction orders is that the sentence length of the order can be as high as the statutory maximum of the offence being sentenced.

From 2008–09 to 2012–13, 7 people sentenced for the principal offence of robbery received a community correction order as their total effective sentence. The length of community correction orders ranged from 1 year to 4 years. The most commonly used length was 1 year, which was given to 3 of the 7 people who received a community correction order.

Appeals

A sentence imposed on a person may be appealed[12] by that person or by the Crown. A person sentenced may also appeal against his or her conviction. All appeals made in relation to people sentenced in the higher courts are determined by the Court of Appeal.

As a result of successful appeals against sentence, the total effective sentence and/or the non-parole period changed for 2 people. Both of these appeals were made by the person sentenced and resulted in a sentence reduction. The longest total effective imprisonment term to be reduced was a sentence of 8 years, which decreased to 5 years.

The principal sentence also changed for these 2 people as a result of the successful appeals. The longest principal sentence of imprisonment reduced was 5 years, which decreased to 4 years.

With the original sentencing data revised to incorporate appeal outcomes, the adjusted longest total effective imprisonment term decreased to 5 years and 6 months and the median length is unchanged at 2 years. The adjusted longest non-parole period decreased to 3 years and the median was not changed.

The adjusted longest principal sentence of imprisonment was 4 years and 6 months and the adjusted median imprisonment term was 1 year and 8 months.

Summary

Between 2008–09 and 2012–13, 109 people were sentenced for robbery in the higher courts. Over this period, the majority of people sentenced were men (92%), while 89% were between the age of 18 and 40 years.

The majority of people sentenced for robbery received a period of imprisonment (54%), while 15% received a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment and 8% received a community-based order.

Men were more likely than women to be sentenced to a period of imprisonment. Conversely, women were more likely to be sentenced to a community-based order, a community correction order, or a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment.

Imprisonment was more common for those older than 30 years of age, and wholly suspended sentences of imprisonment were more common for those younger than 25 years of age.

Each of the 109 people was sentenced for an average (mean) of 2.76 offences, including 1.23 offences of robbery. The most common offence finalised in conjunction with robbery was theft (14.7% of all cases). The number and range of offences for which people with a principal offence of robbery were sentenced help explain why imprisonment sentence lengths were longer for the total effective sentence than for the principal sentence. The median total effective imprisonment length was 2 years, while the median principal imprisonment length was 1 year, 8 months and 15 days.

Total effective imprisonment lengths ranged from 2 months with no non-parole period to 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months. The most common sentence of imprisonment was one year with a non-parole period of less than one year.

The most common wholly suspended sentence length was one year.

A small number of people were able to successfully appeal against their sentences. When the results of the appeal outcomes are incorporated into the original sentencing data, the range of total effective imprisonment length was 2 months to 5 years and 6 months, and the range of principal imprisonment sentence length was 2 months to 4 years and 6 months.

Endnotes

[1] This series of reports includes custodial and non-custodial supervision orders imposed under Part 5 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) as sentencing orders and in the count of people sentenced. These orders are not sentencing orders, as they are imposed in cases where the defendant is not guilty because of mental impairment. However, they are included in this report as they are an important form of disposition of criminal charges.

This Sentencing Snapshot is an update of Sentencing Snapshot no. 121, which describes sentencing trends for robbery between 2006–07 and 2010–11.

[2] The information source for sentencing outcomes for robbery only contains information on age and gender characteristics. No other demographic analysis is possible using this data source.

[3] The source data for the statistical information presented in this Snapshot were provided by the Business Intelligence area of the Courts and Tribunals unit within the Department of Justice (Vic). The Sentencing Advisory Council regularly undertakes extensive quality control measures for current and historical data. While every effort is made to ensure that the data analysed in this report are accurate, the data are subject to revision.

[4] If a person is sentenced for a case with a single charge, the offence for that charge is the principal offence. If a person is sentenced for more than one charge in a single case, the principal offence is the offence for the charge that attracted the most serious sentence according to the sentencing hierarchy.

[5] Immediate custodial sentence includes imprisonment, partially suspended sentence, and youth justice centre order.

[6] Age is as at the time of sentencing.

[7] Some defendants who were under the age of 18 at the time of committing the alleged offence and who were not 19 years or older at the time proceedings commenced may have been dealt with in the Children’s Court of Victoria.

[8] Refer to endnote 4.

[9] In addition to the 59 people who were sentenced to imprisonment as the principal sentence and were sentenced to imprisonment as the total effective sentence, one other person sentenced to a mixed principal sentence (imprisonment and community correction order) received a total effective sentence of imprisonment.

[10] A total of 6 people were not eligible for parole because they were given a total effective sentence length of less than one year.

[11] Two people were not given a non-parole period relating to that case alone, but a non-parole period that also related to other cases. It is not possible to determine the length of the non-parole period that relates to these cases. The non-parole periods for these people are excluded from the analysis. A non-parole period was not set for 4 people who were eligible for a non-parole period.

[12] Appeals data were collected by the Sentencing Advisory Council from transcripts of sentencing remarks of criminal appeals on the Australasian Legal Information Institute’s website (external link opens in a new window).