Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3886 ..

Debate resumed.

MR HUMPHRIES: I was referring to armed robbery and making the point that there are a number of ways of dealing with armed robbery. I mentioned extra police and I mentioned high clear-up rates. I have also, in the past, spoken about the need for targeted premises to take better care of their own security. Those are all matters which, I think we would agree, need to happen.

There is another device which I believe, and I might say it appears the bench believes, also needs to be available to deal with that matter, that is, the prevalence of the offence and sentencing based on prevalence. To put it simply, if the Territory is experiencing a wave of crime - for example, armed robbery - and an armed robber comes before a judge, it not only should be available to that judge, but also should be the duty of that judge to sentence so as to deter, and to base his decision on the prevalence of that offence in the community. It is a protective device. It is designed to ensure that the community is afforded some protection in those circumstances. Ms Tucker makes the point that that would be unjust in the case of individuals.

Mr Moore: And the role of the court is to apply the law to individuals. Our role is to do the general.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, that is not the role of the court entirely. There are other factors as well. One of those factors is a broad obligation to victims, whether actual victims or notional victims, and to the broader community. That obligation is met by deterring other crimes from being committed by a sentence which sends a signal. If we do not allow judges to take into account, in this particular context, armed robbery and the prevalence of armed robbery, how do we deliver that kind of signal through sentencing policy? Clearly, we cannot.

Senior members of the legal profession have written to the Government expressing their concern about this, and asked for the matter to be dealt with by the legislature. They have asked us to act in this matter. I would think that members of the Canberra community would be joining that call with some alacrity. They are concerned about the increase in armed robberies as well. What does this Assembly propose to do about that? We do not think it is appropriate to take into account prevalence when judges pass sentence. We do not think we should act in this area. I do not propose to go to the next election and say that, in the face of a serious increase in armed robbery, I sat on my hands and did nothing. I would ask members of this place to ask themselves whether they are serving their community very well by doing just that.

I might get Mr Wood's attention, because I want to address an argument he put forward. Mr Wood raised a very important point, and I hope that he will change his view, based on this particular argument. Mr Moore was also of the same opinion. This is a quite important issue and I would be grateful if you would listen to the argument. The point was made, certainly by Mr Wood and I think by Mr Moore as well, that the decision in Stafford's case has conclusively resolved the question of rehabilitation. I want to read

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .