Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Tuesday, 3 August 2004) . . Page.. 3294 ..

pleaded guilty to demonstrate their motivation to address their offending behaviour by extending bail orders for a period of time, generally with supervisory conditions. Positive progress during this period often results in a lesser penalty ultimately being imposed than that originally envisaged by the court. These remands are often referred to as “Griffiths” remands or bonds after the case of Griffiths v the Queen.

Following the period of remand a report is usually provided to the court and the sentence determined. There is some ambiguity surrounding the ability of corrective services to supervise offenders on bail during this period. This practice has been revised and it is proposed to give it legislative basis. These orders will be known as “pre-sentence orders” and will allow for an adjournment of sentencing proceedings for up to 12 months to require and enable an offender to complete certain programs, as well as submit to supervision.

Pre-sentence orders provide an offender with an opportunity to do something positive and rehabilitative about his or her offending behaviour. The court can indicate the penalty the offender is likely to receive if he or she complies with the order and a likely penalty if he or she does not comply. Non-association and place restriction conditions will become available as a new sentencing option for the court. A non-association condition prohibits the offender from associating with a specified person for a specified time. A place restriction condition prohibits the offender from frequenting or visiting a specified place or district for a time. Unlike the New South Wales provisions for non-association and place restriction, the government’s provisions will not impose any restrictions on the imposition of these orders. They will ensure the achievement of better sentencing outcomes that effectively deal with offending behaviour and address the causes of crime, while protecting the community.

The bill applies non-association and placement restrictions as conditions of good behaviour bonds, periodic detention orders and home detention orders. This streamlines the process of enforcing the order if the condition is breached. The government’s bill modernises community service orders by linking community service with good behaviour bonds. Community service orders were stand-alone orders. The new arrangements enable the courts to impose community service as a condition included in a good behaviour bond. This change simplifies breach proceedings and will harmonise all community based sentencing options. The number of hours that can be ordered has been increased to 500.

The calculation of ensuring actual time served has been modernised to the nearest hour. The court will be able to order combination sentences. The bill will abolish the current restraints on a court to combine particular penalties on one charge. The changes will maximise flexibility in sentencing and enable the court to take account of individual offenders and specific crimes. For example, a court may now choose to sentence an offender to both some sort of sentence of imprisonment and community service at the same time. This takes into account general and specific deterrence and the protection of the community, and also allows for something to be given back to the community.

The terminology used for sentencing is modernised and simplified. For example, “recognisance” will become “good behaviour bond”. An order currently made under section 402 of the Crimes Act 1900 will be called a “non-conviction order”. An order suspending a sentence currently made under section 403 (1) (6) of the Crimes Act will be

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .