Login
Law Council rejects mandatory minimum sentences
The Law Council of Australia has called for the federal government to reconsider the push for mandatory minimum sentences.
Naomi Neilson
The federal government has passed laws introducing mandatory minimum sentences for child sex offenders, which cover the offences that states cannot. It sets a standard the Commonwealth would encourage states and territories to adopt their own reforms.
While the desire to strengthen the punishment for paedophiles is widespread, lawyers and experts have questioned the changes. The Law Council of Australia (LCA) warned that the mandatory sentencing provisions “[set] a dangerous precedent”.
“Mandatory minimum sentences are abhorrent to a whole notion of sentencing where judicial discretion is essential and can result in perverse jury decisions of not guilty for [low-end] offending where juries think the sentencing outcomes will be unfair because of the mandatory minimum,” a statement from the LCA noted.
The LCA added that not all child sex crimes are the same. In its example, two families who take a holiday together and an 18-year-old and a 15-year-old commence a sexual relationship, the 18-year-old would face a mandatory five-year sentence. This will also be said of an 18-year-old exchanging images with a 15-year-old on social media.
“Mandatory minimum sentences [impose] restrictions on the judicial discretion and the independence, [and] are inconsistent with law principles and undermine confidence in the system of justice,” the LCA said, adding that the sentences erode the important incentive to plead guilty, which will lead to more contested trials.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
