It is the second most supported e-petition in the ACT’s history: more than 3,000 people have signed bereaved father Tom McLuckie’s petition calling for an overhaul of criminal sentencing and penalties for repeat offenders. No other petition since 2018 has received such popular support.

Mr McLuckie’s two other e-petitions, demanding an independent review of the ACT judiciary’s sentencing and appointments, received more than 2,000 signatures.

He presented his three petitions to Liberal MLA Jeremy Hanson this morning. Mr Hanson will table the petitions in Tuesday’s Legislative Assembly. Mr McLuckie, victims of crime, and their families will attend.

That day, too, the Canberra Liberals will move a no-confidence motion against Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury if he does not agree to an independent review – as several thousand Canberrans, as the opposition, as the Australian Federal Police Association insist must happen.

• Liberals threaten no confidence motion in Attorney-General (28 September)
• AFPA wants Shane Rattenbury to resign as Attorney-General (17 September)
• Reform of bail and sentencing in ACT needed, AFPA says (25 August)
• Tom McLuckie campaigns to ensure son Matthew didn’t die in vain (13 July)

Mr McLuckie’s first petition calls for the government to implement minimum sentencing guidelines for grievous and purposefully reckless motor vehicle crimes and re-offending (recidivism) that endanger the community.

‘Matthew’s Law’ is named after his 20-year-old son, killed in May in a head-on collision with a stolen car driving in the wrong direction.

It proposes sentences of up to five years for purposeful driving on the wrong side of a thoroughfare or public footpath; up to three years for repeat offences; up to two years for drug or drink driving; up to one year for excessive speed; up to three years for causing a collision including injury; and up to 10 years for causing a collision resulting in death. It also proposes penalties for furious driving, including driving at or near police, and for high grade reckless and culpable driving. A total of 3,093 people signed this petition.

The other petitions address a public perception that the ACT judiciary is unable or unwilling to impose sentences that meet public expectations.

One petition calls for an independent review of the ACT judiciary’s sentencing for the last five years. Magistrates who do not apply sentences in line with common and statutory laws because of their legal and personal bias, prejudices, or political persuasions should be removed from office by the Attorney-General. It notes concerns the sentencing is influenced by lack of capacity and services available with ACT Corrective Services.

If the Attorney-General does not wish for a review of the performance of the judiciary due to his own legal and personal bias, prejudices, or political persuasions, the petition states that he should be considered unfit for office, and removed from his position by the Chief Minister. 2,446 people signed this petition.

The third petition calls for a review of appointments to the ACT Judiciary, concerned that the judiciary has become a closed shop or boys’ club, without transparency or due process, unelected groups inappropriately represented in consultation and open to political influence. 2,194 people signed this petition.

Mr McLuckie said he was interested in justice after the death of his son.

“There’s been a denial that there’s a problem – there’s been an approach to say these were isolated incidents that killed my son and killed Lachlan Seary [a 19-year-old killed last year in a collision with Peter Loeschnauer, who was driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol; Seary’s family feels the sentence was inadequate]. But they’re not isolated incidents…”

Mr Rattenbury said that once the petitions were tabled, the government would formally respond to them. He noted that he had received representations from Mr McLuckie about these issues. They had, he said, informed in some part the establishment of the Law and Sentencing Advisory Council, announced this morning, half an hour before Mr McLuckie presented the petitions to Mr Hanson.

“We’ve certainly taken these community desires into account,” Mr Rattenbury said.

Mr Hanson said he would take Mr Rattenbury’s announcement in good faith, but he was aware others were cynical about the new Council.

“It does seem that he is trying to deflect away from significant calls for a proper independent review… They see this as not going to fix the problem. To that extent, I agree. If you don’t get a retired judge from another jurisdiction, or a panel of judges coming in here and looking root and stem what is wrong with this system when it comes to sentencing and bail, you’re not going to fix the system.

“An advisory panel will likely be a toothless tiger. They had one before, and it didn’t get the job done. There’s no suggestion that that’s going to fix the problem in any sort of way that needs to be done.”

The ACT Bar Association, however, believes a review of bail and sentencing decisions in the ACT is unnecessary.

“There is a review process already in force,” the Association stated today.

“It is the appellate process. Any sentencing decision of either the Magistrates or Supreme Courts can be appealed by either the Director of Public Prosecutions or the offender. The Director has a further power to seek a review of a bail decision made by either a Magistrate or a Justice of the Supreme Court in respect of family violence or serious offences. The Supreme Court is able to conduct a review of the decision to grant bail if there are exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest to do so. Any such application for review, results in a stay of the original decision granting bail. That means any such accused person would stay in custody until the determination of the review.”

The Association thought harsher penalties and bail laws were entirely unnecessary.

“There are significant hurdles to the grant of bail for repeat offenders, particularly those who were on bail at the time of committing a further offence. In relation to sentencing, the maximum penalties available at sentence are substantial.

“Tougher laws will not resolve the issues underlying criminal offending which often lie in abject social disadvantage, disengagement and drug addiction. These issues must be addressed in conjunction with the criminal justice system in order for there to be any real progress with respect to criminal offending in the Canberra community.  Sentencing innovations such as the Supreme Court Drug and Alcohol Court provide additional sentencing options in the Territory.”

The Association also thought that a a review of the judiciary would be “an undue waste of limited community resources”.

“Again, the review process of decision making is the already existing appellate process. The Bar Association has been and remains supportive of the Territory’s judicial appointments, and is acutely aware of the difficult work that the Territory’s judicial officers undertake on a daily basis.

“We are, in fact, blessed with an abundance of legal talent and expertise on our benches at every level.”