recoznettwo  

[recoznettwo] Expectations and extenuations in the Territory

Trudy Bray
Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:43:54 -0700

The Sydney Morning Herald
Expectations and extenuations in the Territory 

Date: 24/08/2001

Will a new government in the Top End bring any real change on mandatory
sentencing, asks Richard Ackland? 

Few will mourn the departure of one of the meanest little cliques in Australia -
the 27-year-old Country Liberal Party regime in the
Northern Territory. In particular, it is a joy to see the back of Denis Burke,
the thin-lipped hard man of the Top End.

The CLP had been in power so long it was a bit akin to Mexico's PRI, the
wonderfully incongruous Party of Institutionalised Revolution.

Burke was among those inflexible guardians of public virtue persuaded by the
merits of custodial sentences for the slightest infractions
against the law. In bygone times one could have seen his type on the capital
punishment rostrum or extolling the virtues of a good
flogging.

The architect of much of the recent history of political nastiness in the north
is Shane Stone, the Federal president of the Liberal Party
and a former chief minister of the Territory. He was the one who pioneered
mandatory sentencing and the appointment of a chief
magistrate on a special two-year contract to enforce the sentencing regime.

It was fitting that in the dying moments of the Burke regime, Stone was standing
in the witness box in Darwin having the stuffing
knocked out of him by Bret Walker, SC. Walker was appearing for the Aboriginal
Legal Aid Service, which is challenging the validity of
the short-term appointment of the Chief Magistrate on special terms.

Stone was trying to evade responsibility for this unusual arrangement, hiding
behind a rusty memory. But Walker had him squirming and
stumbling for hours.

Anyway, the correct term for mandatory sentencing should be "compulsory
jailing". For property offences in the Territory, thanks to
Stone and Burke, that's what it is. Judges and magistrates under the Northern
Territory Sentencing Act have no option but to send
offenders to jail. It is not three strikes before you're in jail, either. First
strike, you go to jail for 14 days, minimum. Second offence, jail
for 28 days, minimum. Third property offence, jail for 12 months, minimum.

Compulsory jailing applies to all property offences with the exception of
shoplifting. Presumably, the former government, in its wisdom,
thought half the Territory would be in jail if compulsory jailing applied to
that offence. For the first offence defendants can plead an
exceptional circumstance provision. You have to be Mother Teresa to qualify for
the exemption, having met a list of criteria that includes
"assisting police". Very few qualify.

In the case of juveniles committing property offences the jurisdiction was
effectively run by the police, not by the courts. The system is
structured to induce young people to confess to property crimes and thereby be
"diverted" into programs run by the police or by
organisations in association with the police.

Anyway, Burke has been terribly confused about what mandatory sentencing really
means. In 1996, when the mandatory sentencing bills
were debated in Parliament, he said: "It is the Government's hope that the
legislation will lead in time to a reduction in the crime rate of
property offences and a reduction in the crime rate generally."

By April 1999, when an amendment was before the Parliament. Burke said: "No, it
wasn't to reduce crime. That was not the primary
focus of mandatory sentencing. The primary focus of mandatory sentencing was to
punish the offender."

Now along comes the Labor Government of Clare Martin. Will things be different?
Labor has come up with a "six-point plan" to fix the
problem. Like a lot of plans, much of it is gobbledegook. Point No 1 gives Labor
a foot in both camps under the fetching heading of
"serious crime means serious time". Martin is tough on crime and says there
should be jail terms for property offenders, but it won't be
called mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing, as such, will be abolished
under the Martin law-and-order policy.

She will introduce amendments to the Sentencing Act that will spell out
"community expectations" on sentencing in an "objects and
purpose" clause.

"This will mean that judges and magistrates must take note of the community's
serious concern and disgust with people who break into
homes, business and cars. For these criminals who commit such offences, they
will go to prison under Labor."

The policy says property offenders will go to jail "unless extenuating
circumstances exist", would you believe. That sounds horribly
familiar. We don't quite know what will constitute an "extenuating circumstance"
under the new government, but presumably that is what
the judicial discretion will amount to - a small window of extenuation.

As to mandatory life sentences for murder, a policy that has given rise to some
horrific injustices, you couldn't get a cigarette paper
between the policies of Martin and old thin-lips Burke on that one. Both believe
mandatory life means life. Welcome to a brave new
world for the Northern Territory.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or
mirroring is prohibited. 
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0108/24/text/opinion5.html
-- 
*****************************
Join the peoples' movement:
The Australian Reconciliation Party
http://www.green.net.au/arp/
*****************************

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/ until 11 March, 2001 and  
Recoznettwo is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznettwo%40green.net.au/ 
from
that date.
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."

  • [recoznettwo] Expectations and extenuations in the Territory Trudy Bray