The Canberra Liberals have threatened to call for Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury’s resignation or removal, and to move a motion of no-confidence in him continuing in the position, if he refuses to conduct a review into sentencing and bail by the time petitions from a victim’s father are tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

Tom McLuckie has lodged petitions with the Assembly for an independent review of sentencing practices in the ACT Judiciary, a review of appointments to the Judiciary, and to implement sentencing guidelines for grievous and purposefully reckless motor vehicle crimes and re-offending (recidivism).

Those petitions will be tabled in the Assembly on 11 October.

Mr McLuckie is the father of the late Matthew McLuckie, who was killed in May in a head-on collision with a stolen car being driven on the wrong side of the road.

Mr Rattenbury’s position is that there is no need for a wholesale review.

In July, Mr McLuckie posted on Facebook, informing the public he would soon launch the petition.

“My wonderful son, Matthew McLuckie was murdered… Since our devastating loss, we have been told this was ‘an accident waiting to happen’ as there is a group of people in the ACT who get their kicks out of baiting police, stealing cars, racing and driving on the wrong side of the road, and are often drug and alcohol impaired, among other crimes. This needs to stop.”

• Tom McLuckie campaigns to ensure son Matthew didn’t die in vain (13 July)
• Family of Matthew McLuckie left ‘heartbroken’ after fatal collision on Hindmarsh Drive (24 May)

On Facebook this week, Labor MLA Dr Marisa Paterson wrote that she supported Mr McLuckie’s call for a review of sentencing.

“We should always strive to improve outcomes for the community (which should have a rehabilitation focus and may very well include community correction orders, good behaviour orders, etc.,) but the community should feel confidence in these decisions – particularly around judgments for serious criminal offences. There is work to be done.”

In Liberal MLA Jeremy Hanson’s view, Dr Paterson’s support is a split in the government that makes Mr Rattenbury’s position as Attorney-General utterly untenable.

“Mr Rattenbury’s stubborn refusal to conduct a review into sentencing and bail [is] impossible to maintain,” Mr Hanson, the Shadow Police Minister, said.

“Backbenchers in his own government are calling for it to be done.

“This statement joins calls from the Police Association, the families of victims of crime, and the Canberra Liberals, who have called for a review for years.”

The Australian Federal Police Association called earlier this month for Mr Rattenbury’s resignation, arguing he had put the rights of offenders above the safety of Canberrans. In their view, Mr Rattenbury was “pursuing political ideologies”, with the result that the ACT’s sentencing and bail processes were “fundamentally flawed and dangerously inadequate”.

• AFPA wants Shane Rattenbury to resign as Attorney-General (17 September)
• Reform of bail and sentencing in ACT needed, AFPA says (25 August)

Courts were granting bail to recidivist offenders who went on to reoffend, including, in one case, attacking a policeman, while ACT prosecutors were filing a record number of appeals in a bid to address sentences. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has stated the record number of appeals against sentences fell “clearly short of community standards”.

“With police, victim’s families, the DPP, the Opposition and now government and members seemingly all on the same page, it is untenable for the Attorney-General to continue in his position any longer,” Mr Hanson said.

Rattenbury: No need for a review

Mr Rattenbury responded that the ACT Government did not see a need for a wholesale review.

When the issues about sentencing were raised, he had asked the Justice and Community Safety Directorate to identify whether there may be space for improvements, with a focus on reoffending.

“This work is ongoing, but the current evidence doesn’t suggest a need for a wholesale review, and therefore the ACT Government has not committed to one,” Mr Rattenbury said.

“While some the issues that have been raised have some merit for further consideration, they do not amount to a systemic failure of the justice system.

“I am always open to ideas to make our justice system more effective. While it might be politically expedient to call for a ‘tougher’ approach to crime, the evidence is clear that an overly punitive justice system does not reduce crime, but in fact leads to increased criminality in the future.

“Canberrans want evidence-based solutions to complex problems, and won’t tolerate short-term quick fixes that kick the can down the road.”

Chief Minister Andrew Barr also defended his colleague.

“This is all just silly hyperbole from the Canberra Liberals,” Mr Barr said.

“A ‘wholesale’ review is not required.  Instead, the Attorney-General has indicated a narrower range of areas that he is pursuing, and any actions that are required will be undertaken in consultation with relevant stakeholders.”

Mr Barr said “clarifying comments” from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold SC, were “of significant importance”.

In August’s ACT Bar Bulletin, Mr Drumgold had stated that the number of Crown Appeals was significantly higher in 2021–22 than in previous years. The Canberra Times published a correction notice yesterday stating that the number of successful prosecution appeals, not the number of prosecution appeals filed, was significantly higher in 2021–22.

“In short, the increased success in appeals is the product of a higher quality professional appeal unit operating as it should, rather than an increase in the underlying error rate,” Mr Barr said.

The DPP filed 28 appeals in the ACT Court of Criminal Appeal, 25 per cent of which were Crown Appeals. The Crown was successful in 68 per cent of all appeals to the Court.

“Most of the Crown Appeals sought to address sentences for murder and child sexual offending that we considered fell clearly short of community standards for offending of this type,” Mr Drumgold wrote in his article.

There were 27 appeals from the Magistrates’ Court to the Supreme Court, 15 per cent of which were brought by the DPP; 56 per cent of all appeals from the Magistrates’ Court were successful.

There were also a record number of High Court appeals for the office: one Crown application and four defence applications.