judge decides on a punishment. ‘Sentencing’ is when a judge decides on a punishment.

Think of how hard it would be to be a judge and decide on a punishment for someone… How would you decide the punishments for these three armed robbery cases: Less Serious Armed Robbery “Average” Armed Robbery More Serious Armed Robbery Offender just turned 18, with no criminal history Offender is 22, with little criminal history Offender is 40 with long criminal history Weapon was a stick Weapon was a knife Weapon was a shotgun Impulsive (he “just did it” without any planning) Some planning (the night before) Weeks of planning and organising Threatened violence, but didn’t actually hurt anyone Pushed someone over Shot someone Victim was an armed guard Victim was a shopkeeper Victims included elderly women Only $10 taken $150 taken $5,000 taken Decided to plead guilty (even though there wasn’t much chance the prosecution could have proved their case against him). Decided to plead guilty because the prosecution had a very strong case. Decided to plead not guilty, leading to a long and expensive trial.

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES The judge can’t just pick ANY punishment. There are GUIDELINES. These guidelines come from two different places: 1. Parliament (Statutory) 2. Previous cases (Judicial)

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES The really OLD way of choosing a sentence… Judges used to hand down MASSIVE prison sentences that seemed tough (e.g. 25 years), but then the offender would only serve 4 or 5 years. This caused public and media outrage.

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES And THEN we had… The NSW parliament passed the Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW) which required people sentenced with imprisonment to serve a minimum percentage (75%) of their sentence without getting parole. This was called ‘truth in sentencing’.

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES And NOW we’ve got… The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), which was amended in 2003 to give us a very different, complicated system. WHY??? NSW Attorney-General Bob Debus 2nd Reading Speech for the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Bill 2003 (NSW)

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES And NOW we’ve got… The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), which was amended in 2003 to give us a very different, complicated system. MAXIMUM sentences for ALL crimes STANDARD Non-Parole Periods for SOME crimes GUIDELINE judgements for SOME crimes MANDATORY life sentences for murdering police STATUTORY guidelines STATUTORY guidelines JUDICIAL guidelines STATUTORY guidelines

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES MAXIMUM sentences for ALL crimes All crimes have a maximum punishment. Most of the crimes and their maximum sentences are in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Armed Robbery maximum = 25 years

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES But a judge isn’t just going to give the MAXIMUM sentence ALL the time! Every case is going to be different. Some will be more serious. Some will be less serious.

FACTORS AFFECTING A SENTENCING DECISION Aggravating circumstances Mitigating circumstances AGGRAVATING FACTORS MITIGATING FACTORS Looks at the actual CRIME/OFFENCE Can make the punishment more severe e.g. The offence involved violence, the victim was a police officer (or teacher…) who was doing their job, etc Looks more at the OFFENDER Can make the punishment less severe e.g. The person is unlikely to re-offend, the person is of good character, the person has shown that he has taken responsibility for his actions, etc

FACTORS AFFECTING A SENTENCING DECISION Discuss the issues involved with having aggravating and mitigating factors Aggravating circumstances Mitigating circumstances DISCUSS factors that affect sentencing decisions, including the purposes of punishment and the role of the victim The NSW Law Reform Commission Report 138 – Sentencing looked into the problems with having a big list of aggravating and mitigating factors. They found that s.22A (where the aggravating and mitigating factors are listed) was confusing a lot of judges. There were: Too many factors to consider; and Most were completely irrelevant FACTORS AFFECTING A SENTENCING DECISION Aggravating circumstances Mitigating circumstances

FACTORS AFFECTING A SENTENCING DECISION Discuss the issues involved with having aggravating and mitigating factors Aggravating circumstances Mitigating circumstances DISCUSS factors that affect sentencing decisions, including the purposes of punishment and the role of the victim Also, some crimes (like sexual offences under the Crimes Amendment (Serious Sexual Offences) Act 2008) have NO POSSIBLE MITIGATING FACTORS - it doesn't matter if it's your first offence, or you’re usually a good person  you're getting the STANDARD NPP AS A MINIMUM! FACTORS AFFECTING A SENTENCING DECISION Aggravating circumstances Mitigating circumstances

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 2. STANDARD Non-Parole Periods for SOME crimes There are TWO SEPARATE LAWS that the judge has to follow. The Crimes Act tells the judge the MAXIMUM punishment. e.g. 25 years max for Armed Robbery e.g. 7 years SNPP for Armed Robbery The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act tells the judge the ‘STANDARD Non-Parole Period’. This is what parliament says SHOULD be the “standard” minimum punishment.

But this isn’t for every crime! Just SOME!!! STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 2. STANDARD Non-Parole Periods for SOME crimes From the C(SP) Act From the Crimes Act But this isn’t for every crime! Just SOME!!! From the C(SP) Act From the Crimes Act

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 2. STANDARD Non-Parole Periods for SOME crimes But do judges HAVE TO give these ‘standard’ non-parole periods? NO! Judges always thought they had to START from the SNPP and then go up and down from there (based on the aggravating factors and mitigating factors). But the High Court decided in 2011 that the SNPP for a crime is just a ‘guidepost’ or ‘marker’ (Muldrock (2011)). So, the SNPP for a crime just gives the judge SOME DIRECTION

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 2. STANDARD Non-Parole Periods for SOME crimes 35 crimes with SNPPs (set by statute law)

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 3. GUIDELINE judgements for SOME crimes Not all judges think the same way. They are humans, with their own ideas of what is important. What’s the most important in choosing a partner? Sense of humour? Intelligence? Body? Different people give different weight to different aspects.

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 3. GUIDELINE judgements for SOME crimes To normal people, a judge’s REASONS for deciding to give someone 5 years in jail will look like this (x 20 pages) But other judges see it like this:

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 3. GUIDELINE judgements for SOME crimes So, for 3 Armed Robbery cases, 3 different judges will come up with 3 different decisions with 3 different personal “systems” deciding what is (and isn’t) important in working out a punishment. Sentence: 5 years Sentence: 3 years Sentence: 8 years

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 3. GUIDELINE judgements for SOME crimes But WE DON’T REALLY WANT THIS. We want CONSISTENCY in our legal system (judges should be roughly thinking the same way; giving the same amount of weight to the same issues). We want the process to be PREDICTABLE. Sentence: 5 years Sentence: 3 years Sentence: 8 years

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 3. GUIDELINE judgements for SOME crimes

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 3. GUIDELINE judgements for SOME crimes The NSW Sentencing Council looks at the way different sentencing decisions have been made by judges. They focus on the REASONING of the judge in deciding on a specific sentence. The decide for some cases, on ONE JUDGEMENT as being “the CORRECT way to work out the sentence in (this type of) case”

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 3. GUIDELINE judgements for SOME crimes e.g. The NSW Sentencing Council has decided that the case R v Henry (1999) was an excellent example of how a judge SHOULD decide on the punishment for someone in an Armed Robbery case. So NOW, every judge in an Armed Robbery case MUST follow what the judge did in R v Henry (or at least provide good reasons why he/she didn’t!).

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 3. GUIDELINE judgements for SOME crimes So, R v Henry is now a guideline judgement. “best example” judgement “should be followed” judgement

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 4. MANDATORY life sentences for murdering police The NSW government passed the Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Act 2011. This means that if a person is found guilty (by a jury) of murdering a police officer, the judge has NO DISCRETION in sentencing the defendant – the judge must hand down a mandatory LIFE SENTENCE.

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 4. MANDATORY life sentences for murdering police Mandatory sentencing is popular, but it creates serious justice issues: ‘Is a policeman’s life worth more?’, SMH (2011) Parliaments are not legally allowed to take over the role of the courts (e.g. by setting an exact sentence, rather than a range). Get-tough laws erode functions of justice, SMH, 2011 And in Queensland, they brought in mandatory life sentences for repeated child sex offenders, which they deserve, but might give the paedophile an incentive to kill their victim (to prevent being caught and sent to prison for life). Queensland child-sex law 'may lead to murder’, The Australian (2012)

So, our sentencing system is now: STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES ALL crimes have a maximum punishment (set by statute law) There are 35 crimes with SNPPs (set by statute law) There are 22 possible aggravating factors and 13 possible mitigating factors that have to be looked at There are 7 cases (from common law) that are used as ‘guideline’ judgements There is 1 crime with a mandatory sentence (set by statute law) (life imprisonment for murdering a police officer)

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES “You’re almost inviting judges to run the court like a checklist, ‘Oh, he’s got one, two, three, four aggravating factors there – he’s only got three mitigating ones’” Justice Conlon ‘Putting the Truth into Sentencing’, SMH, 2010 SEEM STUPID TO YOU? Judges agree! “The gradual increase in ‘law and order’ measures have forced judges to impose higher sentences for some crimes” ‘Putting the Truth into Sentencing’, SMH, 2010 The legislation setting standard non-parole periods should be overturned Justice Reg Blanch ‘Putting the Truth into Sentencing’, SMH, 2010

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES The IMPACT of the SNPP sentencing scheme on sentencing patterns in NSW Judicial Commission of NSW, 2010 What effect has this new sentencing system (since 2003) had on sentencing in NSW? Did it REALLY make sentencing more consistent? Or did it just INCREASE penalties? IT DID BOTH!

STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES 4. SENTENCING AND PUNISHMENT EVALUATE the effectiveness of sentencing and punishment as a means of achieving justice Is the system of having SNPPs and guideline judgements for certain crimes (an increasing number of crimes – increasing each time a terrible individual crime happens and is on the news) the best way to achieve justice? You should have a very good answer for this, because it is a good tip for the exam. STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL GUIDELINES ? NSW Law Reform Commission Report 138 – Sentencing hadn’t come out by the time this was released, so check the Facebook page to see what the final conclusions were about the effectiveness of the system of sentencing…