Flynn, A (2009) ‘Sentence Indications for Indictable Offences: Increasing Court Efficiency at the Expense of Justice – A Response to the Victorian Legislation’, 42(2) Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 244. (original) (raw)
Related papers
In 2004, the Office of the Victorian Attorney General released the Justice Statement Part I, which outlined a ten-year plan to modernise Victoria’s criminal justice system. A key initiative emerging from this idealistic reform agenda involved a sentence indication scheme for indictable offences, on the basis that it would increase clearance rates; thus in theory, benefiting all parties. In line with the recommendations of a report compiled by the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council (VSAC) in 2007, a pilot sentence indication trial commenced in the County and Supreme Courts, with the sunset clause that it be evaluated after two years and either fully integrated into legislation or abolished (Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) ss 208–9, s 384). In February 2010, the VSAC released its evaluative report recommending the scheme be maintained in its current form. This paper critically analyses some potential flaws in the arguments of the VSAC report, with a particular focus on the ineffectiveness of the scheme, and its potential to result in unjust outcomes.
[2017] New Zealand Criminal Law Review 100 SENTENCE INDICATIONS – SOME PRACTICAL CHALLENGES
2017
Sentence indications have formed part of the practice of criminal law in New Zealand for a number of years. However, appellate courts have at times drawn the practice into question and have called such indications “troublesome” and “problematical”. They have also been the frequent target of Solicitor-General’s appeals, which seek to respond to lenient sentences which have been seized upon by those defendants fortunate enough to receive them. Sentence indications have also been identified as carrying similar risks as plea bargaining, with the potential to encourage even innocent defendants to plead guilty.
Criminology & Criminal Justice, 2017
In recent times, parliaments have introduced legislation directing judges to take defined purposes into account when sentencing. At the same time, judges and politicians also acknowledge that sentencing should vindicate the values of the community. This article compares the views on the purposes of sentencing of three major participants in the criminal justice system: legislators who pass sentencing statutes, judges who impose and justify sentences and jurors who represent the community. A total of 987 Australian jurors in the Victorian Jury Sentencing Study (2013–2015) were asked to sentence the offender in their trial and to choose the purpose that best justified the sentence. The judges’ sentencing remarks were coded and the results were compared with the jurors’ surveys. The research shows that, in this jurisdiction, the views of the judges, the jurors and the legislators are not always well aligned. Judges relied on general deterrence much more than jurors and jurors selected i...
Purposes of Sentencing: Community Views in Victoria
This report is the second in a series on community views about crime, courts and sentencing. It presents evidence of the views of a random sample of 300 Victorians about the purposes of sentencing. The report shows that views on the purposes of sentencing are complex and nuanced. Participants in this study do not focus solely on punishment as a purpose of sentencing, but also see rehabilitation as an important purpose of sentencing in certain instances. These findings show that people rate prior offending as a significant aggravating factor. Indeed, members of the community who responded to this survey clearly appreciate the complexities of sentencing for different types of offender and offence. This appreciation and understanding has important implications for sentencers. Judges and magistrates are required to balance the various purposes of sentencing for every offender who comes before them. At the same time, they have to consider community concerns and expectations of what sente...
Details: Title 1 of 1-Australia & New Zealand Critical …, 2009
This paper examines the veil of secrecy surrounding plea bargaining in Victoria. Drawing upon the findings of a three-year research project that observed participants within Victoria’s criminal justice system, this paper explores the impact of plea bargaining’s lack of transparency on the principle of public and open justice, whereby justice is seen to be done unless under exceptional circumstances. This paper presents a brief comparative analysis of why the priority given to transparency in sentencing practices, often with the justification that it will increase public understanding and confidence is not applied to plea bargaining. In addition, it considers how the veil of secrecy can create inconsistencies in prosecutor approaches to and use of plea bargaining, to demonstrate further impacts of non-transparent justice on criminal proceedings.