Page 2566 - Week 07 - Monday, 15 August 2022
(2) It is estimated that a campground host program costs approximately $5,000 per year in direct costs such as training and consumables, excluding staff time to manage and support the program.
(3) There are no current plans to reinstate the campground host program.
(Question No 852)
Mrs Kikkert asked the Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, upon notice, on 10 June 2022:
(1) Given that the Government did not agree to the recommendation to override Barbaro v The Queen  (HCA 2), p 24, on the basis of protecting the discretion and independence of the court, in the process of considering this recommendation, what limited evidence was available to indicate that the rule in Barbaro lead to an increase in appeals based on manifestly inadequate or excessive sentences.
(2) Did the Government consider the evidence and reasoning behind the Queensland Government’s decision to legislatively override the rule in Barbaro.
(3) Have there been instances where the rule in Barbaro was effectively overridden in ACT courts despite the lack of legislative stipulation.
(4) What measures will the ACT Government take to gather more relevant evidence that may lead to the reconsideration of this recommendation.
Mr Rattenbury: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
(1) The ACT Government is not aware of evidence that indicates that the rule in Barbaro has led to an increase in appeals in the ACT based on manifestly inadequate or manifestly excessive sentences. The Sentencing Council of Victoria has suggested that the rule in Barbaro may have contributed to a slight increase in the number of sentence appeals by the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions (Sentencing Advisory Council, Sentence Appeals in Victoria: Second statistical research report, August 2018). However, there was no direct data attributing the increase in Crown appeals to the rule in Barbaro. In addition, the High Court in Barbaro v The Queen  HCA 2 (obiter) did not anticipate that the proffering of a sentencing range would lead to a reduction in appeals and noted that it would not do anything to help the judge avoid specific error.
(2) Yes, the ACT Government considered the decision of the Queensland Government to amend the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (QLD) to allow the court to receive a submission from a party to the proceedings on what they consider to be the appropriate penalty or range of appropriate penalties to be imposed. The amendment revived a longstanding practice in Queensland and was supported by the Queensland legal profession and other relevant stakeholders. However, the ACT Government notes that the rule in Barbaro supports the fundamental discretion and independence of the court, and the importance of these protections was highlighted by ACT stakeholders during consultation on this recommendation. In addition, an amendment to override the rule may limit rights including the right to a fair trial (section 21 of the