COMMISSIONERIACT

SubmissiontoJusticeReformStrategy,JusticeandCommunitySafetyonFirstStageReport

JusticeReformStrategy-FirstStageReportLegislation,PolicyandProgramsBranchJusticeandCommunitySafetyDirectorateGPOBox158

Canberra ACT2601

IwelcometheopportunitytoprovideasubmissiontotheJusticeReformStrategyinresponsetotheFirstStageReportintoanewcommunitybasedsentencingoptionfortheACT.For thepurposesofthisresponseIwillbereferringtothenewsentencingoptionas'intensivecorrectionsorders'{ICOs)and'newsentencingoptions'interchangeably.

InitialConsiderations

Communitycorrectionsorders,undervariousnamesandinvariousforms,currentlyexistinNewSouthWales,Victoriaand Queensland.Theyhavealsobeenutilisedinvariouscountriesaroundtheworld,includingtheUnitedStates,NewZealand,Sweden,Canada,England,WalesandSouthAfrica.

TheUnitedStateshaveconductedmoreextensiveevaluationsofthesetypesofordersandtheireffectivenessthananyothercountry.Whilstprogramdesignandeffectivenessvarydramatically within the United States, research suggests that any community based

sentencingoptionshould combineasurveillance component with atreatment componenttoaffectrecidivism.1Reductionsinrecidivism rateswere notidentifiedforsentencesthatdidnotincludearehabilitationcomponent.2

ThesuccessofacommunitybasedsentencingoptionintheACTisdependentontheallocationofsufficientresourcesfortreatmentthroughrehabilitationprogramsandsupervision.

Offenderprogramsandoutcomes

Thecommunityneedsgreatercertaintyandevidenceabouttheeffectivenessofcurrentprogramsbeforeitisaskedtoexpendmoreresourcesonsimilar,albeitmoreintensive,interventions.Thelackofevidence ontheeffectivenessofcurrentprogramsandtheabsenceofdataoncurrentprogramactivitycreatesdoubtaboutoffenderaccountabilityandeffectivenessofnon-custodialsentences.

1LoranaBartels,'LiteratureReviewonIntensiveSupervisionOrders:AReportPreparedfortheACTJusticeand CommunitySafetyDirectorate'{2014)17

2Ibid,17CitingCLowenkampetal, 'IntensiveSupervisionPrograms:DoesProgramPhilosophyandthe

PrinciplesofEffective InterventionMatter?'(2010)38JournalofCriminalJustice368,369.

Measuringtheeffectivenessofoffenderprogramsisnotoriouslydifficult.3Despitethisdifficulty,comprehensiveevaluationandpublicationofevaluationoutputsisnecessaryfordevelopinganevidencebasefromwhichtomakeimprovementstoprogramsortomeasurewhetherornottheyareeffective.

Thesuccessofintensivecorrectionsorderswillbehighlydependentontheavailabilityofrelevant,evidence-basedtherapeutic programsforoffenders.Currently,thereislimitedpubliclyavailableinformationontherehabilitativeprogramsavailabletooffendersservingcommunitybasedsentencesintheACT.Itisessentialtothecommunity'sacceptanceofthenewsentencingoptionthatthepublicbeprovidedwithspecificinformationontheprogramsthatwillbeavailableunderitsconditions,withpublicreportingonprogramoutcomes,thefrequencyofprograms,numbersofparticipants,andlevelsofattendanceandcompletion. Completionratesareimportanttomeasurebecauseoutcomestudies

generallyidentifyareductionofre-offendingofbetween 10percentand30percentamongoffenderswhocompleteprograms.4

Programsneedtoincludeevidencebasedandregularly evaluateddomesticviolenceperpetratorprograms,sexualassaultoffenderprograms,otherviolence/angermanagementprogramsanddrugandalcoholprograms.Inaddition,theconsequencesassociatedwithoffendernon-attendanceatprogramsmustbeclearlyspelt outinadvanceand consistentlyupheldthroughtimelybreachaction.TheCourtsmustalsobesupportedtosendtheclearmessagetoperpetratorsthat therearelimited1secondchances'giventothose whoarenon compliantwithexpectationsandreasonabledirections.

SentencingadvisorycouncilandReviewofthenewsentencingoption

TheACTSentencingdatabasehasbeenestablishedtoassist ingatheringinformationaboutsentencingpracticesintheACT.HoweverunlikeNSWandtheCommonwealth,noadvisoryboardorcounselexistsintheACTtoreviewandassesstheinformationmadeavailablebythedatabase.DrLoranaBartels,fromUniversityofCanberrastatedthat

sentencingcouncilshaveacriticalroletoplayasabridgebetween the criminaljusticesystemandthegeneralpublic.VictimsandtheACTpublicingeneraldeserve bothaccessibledataandacouncilwhichcaneffectively disseminate thisinformation.5

ItisextremelydifficulttomeaningfullyassessandevaluatetheoutcomesofsentencingoptionsintheACTwithoutanexpertauthorityofthistype.

Intheabsenceofasentencingadvisorycouncilitiscriticalthatasubstantivereviewoftheeffectivenessofthenewsentencing optionisconductedfiveyearsafterits implementation.Thisreviewneedstomeasuretotalnumbersofordersbeingmadebythecourt,whethertheyareusedinthemannerinwhichtheyareintendedtobeused,whetherthenew order

3FLosel,WhatWorksinReducingRe-Offending:AGlobalPerspective,27April2010.

4 VictorianOmbudsman,InvestigationintotherehabilitationandreintegrationofprisonersinVictoria-

DiscussionPaper,December20149.

5DatabanknotenoughforJustice',CanberraTimes,6December2012

hasresultedinnet-wideningandimpactsonrecidivismcomparedtoothersentenceoptions.Itwillalsobeimportanttoanalysethetypeofoffencesitisusedfor,thetypeofconditionsbeingimposedwithinthoseorders,andthewayinwhichbreachesoftheordersaredealtwith.

Aformofimprisonment

IagreewiththeadviceandrationaleprovidedbytheAdvisoryGroupinrelationtothenewsentencingoption beingexpressedasatermofimprisonment.

Net-widening

Agendaitem3fromthe AdvisoryGroupmeetingon13May2015relatedtotheriskof'net­widening'.Oneoftheviewsexpressedwasthatinordertopreventnet-wideningdownthescaleofsentencing,anintensivecorrectionsordershouldonlybeimposedafterthejudicialofficerhasdeterminedthatatermofimprisonmentwouldbeappropriateandhasindicatedthe termofimprisonmenttobeimposed.

Itwasproposedthatanadjournmentwouldbemadetoallowassessmentof offenders'suitabilityforanintensivecorrectionsorder.OneoftheconcernsraisedduringtheAdvisoryGroupdiscussiononthisissuewasthatanassessmentforthistypeofordermaybecomplexanddistinctfromthetypeofassessmentusedtoprepareapre-sentencereport.ItisnotclearwhattheassessmentprocessforanICOwouldinvolve,butdetailsofwhatthisassessmentinvolvesshouldbearticulatedtodeterminewhetherthisassessment couldbe incorporatedintoapre-sentence report.

Currently,onceacourtdeterminesthatapre-sentencereportisrequired,thematterisadjournedforapproximately4weeksforoffenderswhoareincustody,and6weeksforoffendersonbailtoallowthereporttobe prepared.Presumably,asecondassessmentforanICOwouldrequireacomparabletimeframe.Itisalsoprobablethatfurthersubmissionswouldneedtobemadeoncetheassessmentisputbeforethecourt,bybothprosecutionanddefence,essentiallyresultingintwoseparatesentencingexercises.Thislengthyadjournmentandadditionalsentencingproceedingwillbecostlyandwillcausesignificantdelaysinfinalisingmatters.

Length of new sentence order

Thenewsentencingoptionshould belimitedtoamaximumoftwoyears.Thiswouldprovideanappropriateandsufficient opportunityfortherapeutic intervention.Itshould

alsobenotedthatthenewsentencingoptionreplacesperiodicdetentionwhich,priortothemostrecentamendments,waslimitedto2years.6

Somecaponthelengthofordersisnecessary.Thetherapeuticand/or rehabilitativeopportunitiesinherentinthenewsentencingoptionmayhavelimitedutilityifimposedformorethantwoyearsascriminogenicfactorsarebestaddressedthroughearly,intensivetherapeuticinterventionsandclosesupervisionintheearlystagesofanorder.Itwouldalso

6Crimes(Sentencing)Act2005(ACT)11.3(b)-effective28/02/2014-04/12/2014

COMMISSIONERIACT

beunsustainabletosubjectoffenderstointensiveinterventionsforperiodslongerthantwoyears.

DecidingthatatermofimprisonmentwillbeimposedbeforedecidingthatitwillbeservedbywayofICOmayhelppreventnetwidening.Ifatermofimprisonmentistobedeterminedpriortoassessmentforanintensivecorrectionsorder,thetwoyearcapwillhelpreducepotentialnet-wideningupthesentencingscalebynegatingtheneedforassessmentforICO.Judicialofficersimposingatermofimprisonmentexceeding2yearswouldnotberequiredtohaveanoffenderassessedforanICO.

Excludingoffenderswhoaresentencedtoaperiodofimprisonmentforlongerthantwoyearswouldbolster communityconfidenceintheorderbyreassuringthepublicthatextremelyseriousoffenderswouldnotbeeligibleforthenewoption.ACanadianstudyinvestigatedcommunityconfidenceincommunitybasedsentencingoptionsandlookedatcommunityconfidenceinsentences.Itfoundthat64%ofpeoplesurveyedsupportedtheorderswhenconditionswereveryclear,italsofoundthat1doublingthelengthofsentenceonlyincreasedsupportby8%,suggestingthatpeopleareafterappropriateconditions,not

simplylongersentences.'7

ConsiderationshouldalsobegiventolegislatingaminimumtermofsixmonthsforICOs.Aprimaryobjectiveofthissentencingoptionshouldbetoachievesustainedandmeaningfulchangeintheoffender'sbehavioursandsituation.Thisisunlikelytobeachievedifanorderisonlyinplaceforafewmonths,especiallygiventhat1rehabilitationofsuchshortperiods[lessthansixmonths]isconsideredunrealistic'inprison.8Theresourcesrequiredtoassessandimplementanintensivecorrectionsorderwouldonlybeaworthwhileinvestmentifsufficienttimeisavailabletoachievechange.NewZealandrequiresthattheirintensivesupervision ordersareimposedforaminimumof6months9 whichappearstobealogicalandpracticalrestrictionontheapplicationofasentenceofthistype.

Eligibilityfornewsentence

IfanICOreplacesperiodicdetention,itshouldfollowthatthatonlythoseoffenceswhichwouldhavepreviouslyattractedatermofimprisonmentaretargeted.

InVictoriaaCommunityCorrectionsOrder(CCO}canbeimposedforanyoffencepunishablebymorethan 5penaltyunits10-thisisaverylowthreshold.Givenwherethisnewsentencing option isdesigned to sit in relationto other sentencing options, andthe

unanimousviewoftheAdvisoryGroupthatitshouldbeexpressedasatermofimprisonment,theACTshouldplacemorelimitsontherangeofoffencestheICOisavailablefor.

7LoranaBartels,abovenl,11citingTSandersandJRoberts,'PublicAttitudestowardConditionalSentencing:ResultsofANationalSurvey' (2000)32CanadianJournalofBehaviouralScience 199.

8JusticeandCommunitySafetyDirectorate(2015)JusticeReformStrategy-FirstStageReport,ACT

Government,13

9SentencingAmendmentAct2007(NZ)54B{2).

10SentencingAct1991(VIC),s37.

COMMISSIONERIACT

AnequivalentintensiveorderinQueenslanddoesnotexcludeanyoffencesspecifically;howeveritislimitedtocircumstanceswherethecourtsentencesanoffendertoatermofimprisonmentforoneyearorless.11NewSouthWaleslegislationprecludesanorderofthis typebeingmadeforchildsexualoffences.12

Thenewsentencingoptionshouldexcludechildsexoffences.TherearenospecificprogramsavailableforadultswhocommitsexualoffencesagainstchildrenintheACT.Iftargeted,evidence-based·treatmentisnotavailableforthistypeofoffender,therecanbe noutilityinapplyingasentencingoptionthathasafocusonrehabilitation.TheNSWLawReformCommissionopinedthatsexual offencescommitteduponchildrenaresufficientlyserioustowarrantspecificexclusionfromcommunitybasedintensiveorders.13Communityconfidenceinthenewsentencingoptioncouldbeseriouslyerodedbytheinclusionofthesetypesofoffences,giventheabsenceoftargetedtreatment programs.

Victimadvocatesmayfeelstronglythatacommunitycorrectionssentencingoptionshouldnotbeavailableforotheroffences,includingsexualoffencesordomestic/familyviolenceoffences.However,removingasentencingoptiondesignedto sitbetweenfulltimeimprisonmentandasuspendedsentencemayhavetheunintendedconsequenceofreducingtheseverityofthesentencingoption imposedfortheseoffencesratherthanincreasingit.Unlikechildsexualoffences,therearespecificprogramsforsexualassaultanddomesticviolenceoffenders.RemovingtheapplicationofanICOforcertainoffencesmaymeanthatthejudicialofficerfeelsrestrictedtoimposingasuspendedsentencewithanassociatedgoodbehaviourorder.Significantlylowersupervisionand/ortherapeutic requirementswouldresultandtheoffenderreceivesamorelenientsentencethantheywouldifanICOwereavailable.Attemptingtopreventnetwideningbyexcludingspecificoffencesrisksdrivingtheseverityofthesentenceactuallyimposeddownthesentencingscale.

Weneedtobebalancedinprescribingeligibility.Wewanttoincludeoffenceswheretherewouldbeabenefitinrequiringtheperpetratortoundergotreatmentandintensivetherapeuticinterventions.However,thecommunityalsoneedssomesuretythatpeoplewhocommitvery serioussexualand/ordomesticviolenceoffencesarenotgiventheoptiontoserveasentenceofimprisonmentbywayofacommunitybasedorder.Thereisanelementofjusticethatmustbedeliveredforthesetypesofseriousoffences.

SexualoffencesgenerallyarenotexcludedfromthesesentencingoptionsinotherAustralianjurisdictions.Thisisbecausesexualoffencescaptureaverybroadrangeofoffendingbehaviour,rangingfromanactofindecency,suchasthetouchingofabreast,throughtoextremelyseriouscountsof prolongedsexualintercoursewithoutconsentinvolvingsignificantinjury.Forsomeoftheselessseriouscategoriesofoffences theremaybeutilityinhavingICOsavailable,particularlyifthecommunityhassomeconfidenceintheeffectivenessofthetherapeuticelementofthenewsentencingoption.However,thereisevidencetosuggestthatoffenderswhoareconvictedofmoreserioussexualoffencesare

11PenaltiesandSentencesAct1992(QLD),sl2.

12Crimes{SentencingProcedure)Act1999(NSW),s66.

13NSWLawReformCommission,SentencingReport 139{2013),206.

COMMISSIONERIACT

giventermsoffull-timeimprisonment,ratherthantheoptiontoservethose termsofimprisonmentin thecommunity.14

TheACTsentencedatabaseindicatesthatoftheoffenderscharged withsexualintercoursewithoutconsent15betweenJuly2012and31January2015,78%receivedsentencesoffulltimeimprisonment;1611%receivedpartiallysuspendedsentencesand11%receivedafullysuspendedsentence.17Nooffendersreceivedasentenceofperiodicdetention,community serviceoragoodbehaviourorder.18InNSW,intensivecorrectionsorderswerenotwidely usedforsexualoffences-withonly0.6%ofintensivecorrectionsordersimposedbetween October2010andSeptember2011beingforsexualoffences.19Sexualassaultoffenderswhohadapriorsexualoffenceweremorelikelytobesentencedtofulltimeimprisonment.20Thusitwouldappearthatthemajorityofmattersofthistypewouldnotbeconsideredappropriateforacommunitybasedorder.

Itisanunfortunaterealityofdomesticviolencethatmanyvictimsremainin,orreturnto,theabusiverelationship,afterchargeshavebeenlaid.Itisworthnotingtherefore,thatablanketexclusioninapplyingthenewcommunitysentencingoptiontodomesticviolenceoffencesmaymeanthatperpetratorswillnotberequiredtoparticipateinthemoreintensiveandholisticrehabilitationinherentinanICO.Excludingdomesticviolenceoffendersfrombeingrequiredtoparticipateinperpetratorprograms,andprogramsfocusedonaddressingtheirotherriskfactors,willnotassistinrehabilitatingtheoffenderorminimisingtheriskoffurtherviolencetothevictim.

Thecounterargument tothisisthattherehavenotbeenanyspecificprogramsfordomesticviolenceorfamilyviolenceperpetrators,eitherjuvenilesoradults,servingcommunitybasedsentencesinrecentyears.

ACTCorrectiveServiceswillbeginaNSWDomesticAbuseProgram(DAP)forpeopleservingcommunitybasedorderson22June2015.ThisprogramwasdesignedinNSWasaconfrontationalandtherapeutic responsetodomesticviolenceformediumtohighriskoffenders.Theprogramrunsfor10weeksandhasatotalof40contacthours,withazero tolerancepolicyonnonattendance.

WhilsttheNSWDAPprogramhasbeenevaluated,nofindingshavebeenpublished,thereforeitseffectivenessisunknown.TheprogramthatprecededtheDAPwithintheAMC

14ACTSentencingDatabase[Onlineat asat17March2015]

15CrimesAct 1900(ACT)s54(1).

16ACTSentencingDatabase[Onlineat

17Ibid,asat17March2015.

18ACTSentencingDatabase,aboven15,asat17March2015.

19ClareRingland,'Intensivecorrectionordersvsotherpenalties:offenderprofiles.'(2012)CrimeandJusticeBulletin:ContemporaryIssuesinCrimeandJustice.No163.NSWBureauofCrimeStatisticsandResearch,p122°Clare RinglandandDonWeatherburn,'Theimpaceofintensivecorrectionordersonre-offending.'{2013)

CrimeandJusticeBulletin:ContemporaryIssues inCrimeandJustice.No176.NSWBureauofCrimeStatisticsandResearch,p8.

wastheFamilyViolenceSelf-ChangeProgram.Whenevaluatedthisprogramwasfoundtobeonly26%compliantwiththeNSWminimumstandardsforMen'sDomesticViolenceBehaviourChangeprograms.21

Domesticviolenceperpetratorscanbenotoriouslydifficulttorehabilitate.22Theircontrollingandmanipulativebehavioursareoftendeeplyentrenched. Theyfrequentlylackanyinsightintotheiroffendingbehaviourandresisttakingresponsibilityfortheirviolence.Domesticviolenceperpetratorprogramsthereforemust,asaminimum,beintensive,evidencebased,adequatelyresourcedandregularlyevaluatedifwearegoingtoaskthecommunitytoacceptanalternativeto imprisonmentforthesetypesofoffences.

Combination Sentences

AnICOshouldnotbecombinedwith asentenceoffulltimeimprisonment.Thenewsentencingoptionwouldbeunderminedbyallowingthiscombination.Otherjurisdictions,such asQLD,donotpermittheirequivalentofanICOtobecombined withasentenceoffulltimeimprisonment.23AnICOisintendedtobeadirectalternativetoimprisonmentforoffenderswhowouldbenefitfromsignificantrehabilitationandtherapeuticintervention.AcombinationsentencewouldunderminetherehabilitativefocusoftheICOanddelaythecommencementofthatintervention,therebynegatingitseffectiveness.

Theparolesystemisalreadyinplacetomanageoffenderswhohaveservedaperiodofimprisonmentandarebeingtransitionedintothecommunity.Parolecanbeimposedwithawiderangeofconditions,includingrequirementsforparticipationinrehabilitationandtherapeuticintervention.ACTCorrectiveServicesThroughcareprogramisalsoinplace toassistoffenderswiththetransitionfromfulltimecustodyintothecommunity.

CommunityconfidenceinICO'scouldbeerodediftheoptionisnotabletobeclearlyexplained.ThepurposeandapplicationoftheICOmustbesufficientlyclearandeasilydistinguishablefromexistingsentencingoptions.

OthersentencingoptionsshouldalsobeprecludedfrombeingcombinedwithanICO.TherewouldbenoutilityinallowinganICOtobecombinedwithagoodbehaviourorder.ThesupervisionelementofagoodbehaviourorderwouldbesubsumedbytheconditionsinherentinanICO.Similarlyasuspendedsentenceasacombination sentencewithan ICOwouldbeoflittlepracticalvalue.TheremainingperiodofanICOwouldactinmuchthesamewayasasuspendedsentence.Intheeventofabreach,theremainingperiodoftheICOwouldbeabletobeimposed asfulltimeimprisonment.

ItwouldbeincongruoustoallowanICOtobecombinedwithafine.AfineisthelowestavailablesentencingoptionsoitisnotlogicalthatitbecombinedwithanICOwhichisintendedtobeadirectalternativeto fulltimeimprisonment.

21ACTAuditor-General's Report'Rehabilitation ofmaledetaineesattheAMC'(2015)Report2/2015.46.

22MichaelSalter.'ManagingRecidivismamonghighriskviolentmen' (2012)AustralianDomesticandFamilyViolence ClearingHouse.3.

23PenaltiesandSentencesAct1992 (QLD),s113(1).

ItmaybeofbenefittovictimstoallowanICOtobecombinedwithareparationorder,requiringtheoffendertopayfordamagecausedorcostsincurred.However,itwouldbeessentialthatconsiderationtobegiventotheoffender'sincomeandcapacitytopaywhilstsubjecttotheICOpriortocombiningitwithareparationorder.

Mandatory/coreconditions

MostexistingmodelsforintensivecommunitybasedsentencingoptionsinAustraliaincludemandatoryandoptionalconditions.24AnymandatoryconditionsimposedintheACTmodelmustbesufficienttocreateameaningfuldistinctionbetweentheexistinggoodbehaviour

ordersentencingoptionandthenewsentencingoption.Themandatoryconditionsimposedmustbe real,significantandsufficientlyclearifvictimsandthecommunityingeneralaretohaveanyconfidenceinit.

Inconsiderationofmandatoryversusoptionalconditions,NSWIntensiveCorrectionsOrders

(NSW ICO)requiretheoffendertoperformaminimumof32hoursofcommunityservicepermonthasamandatorycondition.25Queenslandprovidesasamandatoryconditionthatan offender complete community service as directed. 26 Victoria providescommunity

serviceasanoptionalconditionwhichcanbeimposedatthetimeofsentence.Ajudicialofficer determinesthe number ofhoursofcommunity serviceto beperformed byan

offender,andinsomecircumstancestreatmentandrehabilitationhourscanbecounted tawardsthisrequirement.27

TheNSWmandatorycommunityservicerequirementhasprovedproblematicinthatithassignificantlylimiteditsapplication.Offenderswithsubstanceabuseissues,mentalhealthconcernsandhousinginstabilitywereoftendeemedunsuitableforaNSWICObecauseoftheirinabilitytocompletethecommunityserviceelement.28 TheNSWLawReformCommissionstatedthat'offenderswhoaremostlikelytobenefitfromanalternativetofull­timeimprisonmentwithastrongrehabilitationelementarethosewhoareleastlikelytobeassessedassuitableforan(NSW)IC0.'29Communityserviceshouldbeincludedasanoptionalcondition,tobeorderedinappropriatecircumstances.

Considerationshouldalsobegiventoimposingaminimumnumberofcontacthoursasamandatorycondition.Ifthiswasincluded,somediscretionfortheperiodtobereducedinexceptionalcircumstanceswouldbenecessarytoavoidrigidity.Itmaybeappropriatethat

24PenaltiesandSentencesAct1992(QLD),s114(1)andCrimes{AdministrationofSentences)Regulation2014

(NSW),Reg186.

25

Crimes{Administration ofSentences)Regulation2014(NSW),Reg186(0).

26PenaltiesandSentencesAct1992(QLD),s114.

27SentencingAct1991(VIC),s48CA.

28NSWLawreformCommission,aboven13,214CitingLawSocietyofNSW,SubmissionSE16,8;TheShopfrontYouthLegalCentre,SubmissionSE28,3;PublicInterestAdvocacyCentre,SubmissionSE29,8;thePublicDefenders,SubmissionSE24,11;LegalAidNSW,SubmissionSE31,11;CorrectiveServicesNSW,SubmissionSE52,12;NSWBarAssociation,SubmissionSE27,6;AboriginalCommunityJusticeGroup,MtDruittand AboriginalLegalService,ConsultationSEC19.

29NSW Law ReformCommission,above n13,245citingTheShopfrontYouthLegalCentre,SubmissionSE28,3;

PublicInterestAdvocacyCentre,SubmissionSE29,8;LawSocietyofNSW,SubmissionSE16,8;NSWSentencingCouncil,SentencingTrendsandPractices,AnnualReport2011(2012),31.

thisdiscretionrestwiththeCourttoensureitisusedsparingly.Contacthourscouldincludeparticipationintreatmentprograms,contactwithcorrectiveservicesstaffand/orcompletionofcommunityservice.Asthissentencingoptionisdesignedtositbetweenasuspendedsentenceandfulltimeimprisonment,therewouldbeareasonableexpectationthatthissentencingoptionshouldimposesignificantobligationsontheoffender.Aminimumnumberofcontacthourswouldpromotecertaintyandtheperceptionthatitisarealpenaltyratherthana1soft'sentencingoption.

ApublicattitudessurveyconductedinCanadafoundthat1providingdetailedinformationabouttheconditionsattachingtooffenders'sentencesresultedinasignificantincreaseinsupportforsuchsentences.aoSupportfortheorderwhentherespondentwasawarethat

theoffenderwouldbesubjecttoconditionswas27%,howeverthisincreasedconsiderablyto64%whenrespondentswereprovidedwithexplicitconditions.31

Clear,realandstandardisedmandatoryconditionswouldassistbothACTCorrectiveServicesandACTPolicinginenforcingtheorders.Suchconditionsmustalsosendaclear messagetotheoffenderfromtheoutsetaboutwhattheirobligationsareandwhatconditionstheyarerequiredtomeet.

Optionalconditions

Therangeofoptionalconditionsavailableshouldbewideandvariedtoalloworderstobetailoredtoaddresstheriskfactorsposedbyawidevarietyofoffenders.TheCourtshouldalsobeabletoprohibitoffendersfromcertainbehavioursoractions,suchasprohibitingcertainoffendersfromresidingwithspecifiedindividualsandpreventingcontactbetween offendersandvictims.Optionalconditionslikehomedetentionandelectronicmonitoringmaybeusefulforcertaintypesofoffenders,butshouldonlybeincludedifsufficient technologyandresourcesareavailabletoensurethattheycanbeeffectivelymonitored.

Whoshouldoptionalconditions?

AllconditionsshouldbeimposedbytheCourtatthetimeofsentence.CorrectiveServicesassessmentscouldprovidejudicialofficerswithuptodateandrelevantinformationaboutanoffender'srehabilitativeneedsandriskfactors.Thiswouldprovidecertaintyfromtheoutset,sendingaclearmessagetotheoffenderabouttheirobligationsandwhattheyarerequiredofthemiftheywishtoavoidfulltimeimprisonment. Providingthecommunity withcertaintyabouttheobligationsimposedatthe timeofsentencewouldpromoteconfidenceinthenewcommunitybasedorder.

Consentoftheoffender

Consentshouldberequiredforthenewtypeofordertobeavailabletotheoffender.Ifanoffenderindicatesfromtheoutsetthatthey do notintendtocomplywiththeorderit

30LoranaBartels,abovenl,11citingTSandersandJRoberts,'PublicAttitudestowardConditionalSentencing:ResultsofANationalSurvey'(2000)32CanadianJournalofBehaviouralScience199.

31Ibid.

wouldbeawasteoftimeandresourcestopursueanoptionthattheCourtisawarefromtheoutsetisverylikelyto fail.

Timelinessandpredictabilityoftheresponsetoabreachwillbeessentialtoensuringtheproposedordersareaviableandeffectivereplacementforperiodicdetention.

TheACTistheonlyAustralianjurisdictionwhichdoesnothaveastatutorypresumptionthatthetermofasuspendedsentencebeimposeduponabreach.32OffenderswhobreachanICObycommittingafurtheroffenceshouldbesubjecttoastatutorypresumptionthatthe

offenderisrequiredtoservetheremainingperiodofthesentenceinfulltimeimprisonment.Thiswouldimposeaclear,consistentandsignificantresponseforoffendersfailingtocomplywithanorder,bolsteringthedeterrenteffectoftheorderandpromotingvictimandcommunityconfidenceinthesentencingoption.

A'swift andsure'consequenceshouldoccurforanyothertypeofbreach. Consequencesofabreachcouldrangefromtheimpositionof allorpartoftheremainingsentenceinfulltimecustodytoincreasedormorerestrictiveconditions.Thetypeofconsequencewouldbedependentonthebreach;howeveritshouldbeclearthattherewillbesignificantconsequencesforallbreaches.

ResearchhasbeenundertakenintheUnitedStatesintotheeffectivenessof probationenforcementprograms.33TheHawaiiOpportunitywithProbationEnforcement(HOPE)programwascreatedin2004andhassubsequentlybeenreplicatedinanumberofotherstates.Thefocusoftheseprogramsisonaswiftandsharpresponsetothebreachesoforderswithoffendersautomaticallyreceivingashortterm of imprisonment for allbreaches.34 EvaluationoftheHOPEprogramsuggestedsignificantbenefitsandreductionsinbreacheswhenaswiftandsharpresponsewasimplemented.35

Consistentwiththeaboveapproach,theCourtisthe mostappropriateforumfor dealingwithbreachesasoffendersinbreachoftheirconditionscould immediately be broughtbeforetheCo1,1rt.TheSupreme,MagistratesandChildrensCourtsalldealwithbailmattersonanalmostdailybasis.ThedutyjudgeintheSupremeCourt,theA2listMagistrateand theChildrensCourtMagistratearealreadypositionedtodealwiththosemattersatshortnoticeandoffendersbreachingthenewsentencingoptioncouldbedealtwithinthoselists.Ifthisisagreed,theCourtwouldbeinapositiontodealwithmattersveryquicklyensuringatimelyresponse,promotingperpetratoraccountabilityandpublicconfidenceinthesentencingoption.Ifthebreachdidnotactivateafulltimeterm of imprisonment, thejudicialofficerwouldbeabletoaltertheorderbyaddingconditionsor additionalrequirementstothe order.

32ACTLawReformAdvisoryCouncil,AreportonsuspendedsentencesintheACT,ACTLawReformAdvisoryCouncil,Canberra2010.

33LoranaBartels,abovenl,18-28.

34LoranaBartels,abovenl,18-28.

35LoranaBartels,abovenl,26.

TheapproachinNSW36refersbreaches totheirequivalentoftheSentenceAdministrationBoard{SAB},howeveritisworthnotingthatinNSWthatboardsitsdaily,whichisnotthepracticeintheACT.

TheFirstStagereporthighlightedaproposalfordealingwithbreachesbasedonatwotiersystemdividedbetweentheSentenceAdministrationBoard{SAB}andtheCourts,withbreachesinitiallygoingbeforetheSABandmoreseriousbreachesbeingreferredtotheCourt.Ido notsupportthis approach.Iamconcernedthatitwouldimplythatminorbreacheswillbetoleratedandincurnorealconsequences,underminingthevalidityof thenewsentencingoption.Itmayalsocauseunnecessarydelaysandmayresultininconsistenciesin thewaysentencesaredealtwithinthetwoforums.Aclear,quickandconsistentapproachtotheenforcementofbreachesisvital.

Variation/cancellation

IwouldsupportanoptionforACTCorrectiveServicestoapplytoaCourt foranearlydischargeasthisis anaccountableandtransparentprocess.

Thenewsentencingoptionshouldalsobesufficientlyflexibletoallowareductionintheintensityofconditionstoprovidepositivereinforcementforoffenderswhohavedemonstrated progress.

ThereshouldalsobeacapacityforanoffendertoapplyforanextensionofanICO,wherecircumstancesoutsideanoffender1scontrol(suchasillnessorinjury}preventcompletionoftheorderwithintherelevanttime period.

JohnHinchey

22June2015

36NSWLawReformCommission,aboven13,247.