A petition to change ACT legislation so convicted paedophiles cannot produce good character references to lessen their sentences will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly next week.
The ‘Your Reference Ain’t Relevant’ campaign, spearheaded by survivors of child sexual abuse, seeks to amend the ACT Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 to delete the words “to the extent that the offender’s good character enabled the offender to commit the offence”.
More than one in three girls and almost one in five boys – 28.5 per cent of Australian children – have been sexually abused, according to the Australian Child Maltreatment Study (2023). But only 0.3 per cent of paedophiles are convicted, and many can produce good character references to lessen their sentences, perpetuating their crimes and undermining justice, the campaign’s spokesperson, Harrison James, told Canberra Daily last year.
Now, their ePetition has received 557 signatures – more than the 500 signatures required.
“This milestone marks a significant step in the campaign’s ongoing efforts to reform the legal framework surrounding character references for convicted child sexual abusers,” Mr James said. “The proposed amendment seeks to bring about a more just and equitable approach to sentencing procedures.
“Perceived good character can be a deceptive element of the grooming process, yet it often results in leniency for convicted paedophiles. Our goal is to redirect this emphasis towards the gravity of the offence itself, rather than the perpetrator’s reputation.”
The campaign has been endorsed by the Australian Federal Police Association (AFPA), the Domestic Violence Crisis Centre (DVCS), the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre, the ACT Human Rights Commission, the Grace Tame Foundation, and the Australian Childhood Foundation.
“These endorsements underscore the urgency and importance of the proposed legislative changes,” Mr James said.
ACT Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury said in his speech for the commencement of the legal year: “I commend the tenacious and focused advocacy of these men. They have started a conversation in the Territory on how evidence of good character should be used in sentencing proceedings relating to child sexual abuse offences. I have asked the Justice and Community Safety Directorate to consider the issue further and assess whether legislative reform is needed in the ACT.”
“As we lead into the week where our petition will be tabled, we aspire for it to be a catalyst. A compelling moment for the government to grasp the urgency for change and take decisive, unapologetic action for the protection of our children,” Mr James said.
The ACT Bar Association, however, argues against a blanket prohibition on presenting evidence of an offender’s character during sentencing.
ACT courts cannot reduce the severity of sentences for sexual offences against children based on evidence of the offender’s “good character”, if that enabled the offender to commit the offence in the first place, the ACT Bar Council argued.
“To the extent, however, that it is proposed that courts be precluded altogether from receiving evidence that a person being sentenced for child sex offences has previously engaged in worthwhile, pro-social activities, and/or was well-regarded in their community, this reform is not supported by the ACT Bar Association,” stated by the ACT Bar Council.
“Sentencing is a nuanced, multi-factorial exercise. One of the factors to which ACT courts are obliged to have regard, and properly so, is the ‘character, antecedents, age and physical or mental condition of the offender’. Not all offenders are identical. A one-off offender with strong mitigating circumstances ought not be treated, for sentencing purposes, as being in the same category as a repeat offender with poor prospects of rehabilitation, even if the nature of the offending is heinous as in relation to child sex offending. A blanket prohibition on the receipt of evidence of ‘character’ of an offender is antithetical to principles of proportionality and balance in the sentencing process.”
The Bar Association opposed the creation of a special category of sentencing for child sex offenders by prohibiting the use of evidence of good character only in relation to them.
“The Bar Association looks forward to participating in sensible, constructive discussions on possible sentencing law reform to ensure that victims’ perspectives are fully taken into account, consistent with the proper administration of justice,” stated by the ACT Bar Council.
Mr James said he was dismayed: “The ACT Bar Association’s defence of convicted child sex offenders’ ‘good character’ over the urgent calls for justice from survivors is not only tone-deaf but a direct insult to every survivor who has bravely shared their story.
“The community demands accountability and protection for survivors, yet the ACT Bar Association is clinging to a position that aligns more with the interests of abusers than with the pursuit of justice. It’s time for a reality check within the legal community.
“The ACT Bar Association’s stance only fuels my unyielding determination to fight for justice and ensure that survivors’ voices are not only heard but acted upon with the urgency and seriousness they deserve.”
