Jeremy Hanson’s call for an independent review of bail and sentencing was rejected by the Legislative Assembly yesterday, but the Liberal MLA vowed to continue the campaign.
“The fight is not over. We lost the battle today, but we won’t lose the war… We’ll keep fighting for the victims of crime, and we’ll keep fighting for a fairer justice system. This doesn’t end today.”
Mr Hanson proposed the review on behalf of the police union, the Australian Federal Police Association (AFPA), and bereaved families, who both feel that too-lenient sentencing laws put the community at risk; repeat offenders, particularly reckless drivers, are given bail, effectively a carte blanche to commit more crimes with little fear of consequences.
The death of two teenage girls in a car crash on Sunday highlights the problem, the Canberra Liberals argue; the driver was in breach of bail and a good behaviour order.
“We see too many perpetrators out on bail committing other violent offences, and this tragic event on the weekend is just yet another example that clearly shows the system is not working as it should,” Mr Hanson said.
The Liberals, the AFPA, and victims’ families blame Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury; in their opinion, the Greens leader put offenders’ rights above the safety of Canberrans.
“How many times do we need to see serious crimes being committed by offenders out on bail before the Attorney-General acts?” Mr Hanson asked.
Mr Rattenbury maintains that a review is not necessary; the government is already working on law reform, and announced a council last week to advise on sentencing.
- ACT Government to set up law reform council (7 October)
Families and police call for reform
Yesterday morning, Mr Hanson tabled three petitions by Tom McLuckie, whose son Matthew was killed in May, in a head-on collision with a stolen car being driven on the wrong side of the road.
One petition – the second most supported in the ACT’s history, with more than 3,000 signatures – calls for a reform of criminal sentencing, including minimum sentencing for grievous and reckless motor crimes and reoffenders. The others call for an independent review of the ACT’s judiciary sentencing and appointments.
- Thousands of Canberrans sign McLuckie petitions for judicial and criminal reform (7 October)
- Tom McLuckie campaigns to ensure son Matthew didn’t die in vain (13 July)
“There is an excessive use of community-based sentencing (evident through the success of TORIC), recidivism in the ACT (83 per cent as per the latest report from ACT Policing), and problems with the bail process (nation leading breaches) and our level of motor vehicle crime (we are either second or first – it’s a close-run race),” Mr McLuckie posted on Facebook.
“By all accounts, we have a repeat offender who has faced over 200 offence charges in the ACT and has never spent a day in prison under a custodial sentence.”
Andrew Corney, too, believes an independent review is necessary. His son Blake, aged only 4, was killed when a truck crashed into the family car, stopped at an intersection. The driver, Akis Livas, had sleep apnoea, but did not declare his condition when he applied for a heavy vehicle licence. Livas earlier served a prison sentence for rape.
“I can speak as a parent that when you’ve seen the inside of your son’s own skull, and worn his brains all over you, that is not a happy experience,” Mr Corney said. “The process that we went through, through the courts, the sentence administration board, and correctional services, to me failed us. All three arms of government failed us.”
The ACT government’s response to the coronial inquest, he believed, was excellent; the government agreed to nearly all the coroner’s recommendations. But the family considered the driver’s sentence of three years and three months for culpable driving inadequate; he was eligible for parole in May.
“As far as sentencing and criminal behaviour goes, not enough is being done,” Mr Corney said. “If two people are rehabilitated, great. But what about the remaining eight? They place the community at risk, and I and I’m sure anyone in my shoes would want to take whatever steps you could, not to have to see what I’ve seen again, forever.”
The AFPA also believe too many perpetrators are out on bail.
ACT Policing’s Operation Toric, targeting recidivist offenders on ACT roads, has laid more than 250 charges, and arrested more than 90 people since it launched in August. Two court proceedings have been completed: a 31-year-old man in breach of an intensive corrections order received two months and 29 days imprisonment, while a 34-year-old woman charged with drink driving received a 12 month good behaviour order.
But police are concerned these criminals will be released on bail to offend again. According to police records, three people have been arrested by Operation TORIC more than once. (UPDATE 14 October)
By the end of last week, 25 of the more than 70 arrested were on bail for other offences, the AFPA said.
“That means they’ve reoffended while on bail,” spokesman Troy Roberts said. “That’s a staggering number, and they’re not minor offences. These are serious traffic offences which could have a serious impact on the safety of the community.”
Already this week, police arrested a 32-year-old man (recently released on bail) for drug driving and aggravated reckless driving; a 35-year-old man (subject to an intensive corrections order) and a 28-year-old woman (for whom an arrest warrant was out) for drug driving and drug trafficking; and a 28-year-old woman (on a good behaviour order) for dangerous and unlicenced driving.
These, Mr Roberts said of one incident, are “just another example of the revolving door of the courts… It’s lucky that no-one was killed.
“The courts really need to start looking at people’s criminal record, and start actually thinking about criminal safety. The needle has moved too far to the offender. And I think we need to start looking at how this impacts on the community.”
No-confidence motion in Attorney-General
The Liberals had given Mr Rattenbury an ultimatum: if he did not agree to an independent review by the time the petitions were tabled, they would move ‘no-confidence’ in him, and demand his resignation. Mr Hanson claimed the Attorney-General is “in denial that we have systemic problems with the justice system”.
The AFPA and Mr McLuckie’s petition also called for Mr Rattenbury to resign.
- Liberals threaten no confidence motion in Attorney-General (28 September)
- AFPA wants Shane Rattenbury to resign as Attorney-General (17 September)
“This isn’t just the Canberra Liberals who have lost confidence in the Attorney-General,” Mr Hanson said. “It’s the frontline police association that’s saying that. It is the victims of crime who are saying that.”
With the government numbers, the no confidence motion was easily defeated.
“The no-confidence motion is obviously a matter of politics in the Assembly,” Mr Rattenbury stated.
This term, the Canberra Liberals have made no-confidence motions against Chief Minister Andrew Barr (the Greens’ objection to an item of expenditure in the ACT Budget apparently showed the Chief Minister did not have the full support of his government), and ministers Mick Gentleman (twice – over escapes, riots, and breaches of human rights at the Alexander Maconochie Centre), Yvette Berry (over the unsafe Calwell High School), and Chris Steel (over the CIT contracts débâcle).
Motion for independent review ‘negated’
In the afternoon session, Mr Hanson made a formal motion calling on the ACT Government to conduct the review.
Mr Rattenbury amended Mr Hanson’s motion entirely; in the Liberal MLA’s words, “completely negating the substance”.
A wholesale review of the system is necessary, Mr Hanson argued. The Liberals envisage that a panel of retired judges (from the ACT and other jurisdictions) would look at the data to see how the ACT system performed compared to other jurisdictions, whether sentencing and bail were working effectively, and, if not, why not.
One problem, Mr Hanson suggested, might be that judges were reluctant to send remandees to jail, where they would mix with sentenced prisoners.
The review would also look at other options beyond incarceration, such as the effectiveness of youth justice programs.
“It is clear that there has been a loss of confidence from the police and from the community in our justice system, into sentencing and bail, and a review would go a long way to re-establishing that confidence,” Mr Hanson said.
The AFPA wants the review to see if the system is fit for purpose, and meeting community expectations, spokesman Troy Roberts said.
“If a review comes back and says everything’s perfect, no problems, we’ll wear that, we’ll move forward. But we know that doing a review may actually assist the judiciary and the courts, because they’ll have their input into it.”
“The decisions need to be effective in keeping our community safe; they need to be effective in terms of sentencing, making sure the people who should be incarcerated are, and that people are only allowed out on bail when there is confidence that they won’t re-offend on bail,” Mr Hanson said.
“That’s clearly not happening.”
Rattenbury: Government reforms make the community safer
The Attorney-General’s amendment instead drew attention to the government’s work to ensure sentencing and bail laws and judicial outcomes were appropriate, and in line with community expectations.
“We are trying to make sure that we step through this in a careful and thoughtful way to put in place good reforms that make our community safer,” Mr Rattenbury said.
Last week, Mr Rattenbury announced the government would establish an independent council of experts to advise on law reforms and sentencing; a sustained mechanism that could examine issues as they arise and seek advice on prospective reform. It would examine dangerous driving issues as a priority, Mr Rattenbury stated.
“I think that is a sensible and substantive reform that we’re putting in place,” Mr Rattenbury said.
Transport and City Services would review road traffic penalties, including possibly introducing new offences, and reforms to seize vehicles. The government would review existing bail laws and sentencing laws, with a particular focus on recidivist offenders.
Meanwhile, the Assembly’s Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety is conducting an inquiry into dangerous driving.
In short, Mr Rattenbury thought, the Liberal motion “really doesn’t call for much substantively different to what the Government has already committed to do”.
Moreover, it was unclear whether the review would be “an objective, arm’s-length check-up on the health of our justice system” or “an inquisition into every decision part-reported in the media”.
Mr Rattenbury was concerned an independent review would usurp the roles of the Judicial Commission and the appellate system. The system of government was founded on a separation of powers: the executive government cannot instruct the judiciary.
“If ministers were able to tell the judiciary what decisions to make, a key check on power would be impaired,” he said.
Nor did the government support minimum mandatory sentences for offenders, as Mr McLuckie’s petition proposed: “Judicial discretion is very important,” Mr Rattenbury said.
In his view, the ACT justice system is not lenient. Offenders found guilty will get a custodial sentence 19 per cent of the time; 62 per cent of custodial sentences are for full-time imprisonment; and the median length of custody in a corrective institution is four months (the same as South Australia, Tasmania, and the Northern Territory). All three statistics are the fourth highest of the eight Australian jurisdictions.
| Jurisdiction | Percentage of defendants with a guilty outcome sentenced to a custodial order | Percentage of custodial sentences ordered to custody in a correctional institution | Median sentence length of custody in a correctional institution |
| ACT | 19% (667 defendants) | 62% (416 defendants) | 4 months |
| NSW | 14% (19,538) | 60% (11,707) | 10 months |
| VIC | 10% (7,006) | 92% (6,455) | 3 months |
| QLD | 15% (19,586) | 66% (12,861) | 12 months |
| SA | 26% (5,881) | 58% (3,412) | 4 months |
| WA | 10% (6,783) | 58% (3,930) | 9 months |
| TAS | 23% (1,951) | 46% received a fully suspended sentence (899); just under 46% of other defendants received custody in a correctional facility | 4 months |
| NT | 47% (4,029) | 83% (3,353) | 4 months |
Recidivism had fallen by 9 per cent over the first two years since the ACT Government introduced its reducing recidivism strategy last term (2016–20), Mr Rattenbury observed. He acknowledged this could be due to COVID lockdowns and restrictions, but noted that crime rates did not return to normal as quickly and completely as most other jurisdictions.
He called for a holistic approach to the justice system. While “there will always be a time and place for people to be sent to custody”, many dangerous offenders have serious drug, alcohol, and mental health problems. Programs like the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List, Galambany Circle Sentencing Court, and the Restorative Justice Unit reduce further offending, by making the offender take responsibility for their actions, and remedy both the causes and consequences of their actions, Mr Rattenbury argued.
The best way to “make the community safer … is not to just throw people in jail and then let them out again in a few years’ time”, but to “change their behaviour, change their lives, stop them offending again in the future”.
“That is what I’m trying to achieve. That is the best outcome for Canberrans overall.”
Labor backbencher Dr Marisa Paterson had written on Facebook that she supported Mr McLuckie’s call for a review of sentencing – but voted instead for Mr Rattenbury’s amendments yesterday. Mr Hanson ironically wondered what conversations held behind closed doors.
Mr Hanson said it was “very disappointing” the government had not agreed to the independent review; in his opinion, it was “inexplicable” the ACT Government would not support what the AFPA, victims, and petitioners had called for. While the Liberals welcomed the government measures, they were not enough.
The Liberals first called for a review into sentencing a decade ago, Mr Hanson noted: who committed offences, what offences, why, what the consequences were – but, he stated, the government did not even collect that data, and refused to provide it.
“I would assert, there would be a lot less people, a lot less families out there grieving, if we had a proper bail and sentencing inquiry done,” Mr Hanson said. “We don’t want to see more grieving parents; we want to do everything we can to stop tragedies unfolding in Canberra.”
The AFPA’s Troy Roberts said the outcome was not unexpected, but disappointing.
“We’re not going to go away; we will continue to highlight deficiencies in the system, and support the victims and Mr Hanson and the Liberal party on the floor.”
