Media release
Australian Law Reform Commission
26 July 2004
Same crime, different time? ALRC says federal sentencing laws need review
Federal prisoners are receiving different treatment despite similar sentences—depending on which state or territory they happen to be in, the nation’s top law reform officer said today.
Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) President Professor David Weisbrot said there are about 800 federal prisoners in state and territory jails, and the federal Crimes Act was supposed to ensure they are treated equally, no matter where they are doing their time.
“There are concerns that’s not what is happening in practice. Federal crimes are prosecuted in state and territory courts—then offenders have their sentences administered by state and territory correctional authorities, who are bound by their own rules and regulations.
“An example of this is the recent controversy surrounding stockbroker Rene Rivkin, who was convicted of a federal offence and sentenced by a NSW court to weekend detention for two years—with state officials making decisions about his medical condition and how and whether he actually would serve out his sentence.
“Differences in law and approach to sentencing options—such as non-parole periods, probation orders, remissions, community service orders and diversion programs—mean that federal offenders in, say, Queensland or the Northern Territory, may serve a sentence in a very different way to a person convicted of the same crime in Victoria or Tasmania,” Prof Weisbrot said.
“We must decide, as a matter of policy, whether that situation should continue—or whether we should try to promote greater parity in federal sentencing,” he said.
Prof Weisbrot said the federal Attorney-General has asked the ALRC to review Part IB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which governs the sentencing, imprisonment and administration of federal offenders. Terms of reference for the inquiry were released today.
Prof Weisbrot said the relevant sections of the Crimes Act were structured in an unnecessarily complex way and judges and magistrates have complained that they are uncertain about how to apply the law.
The ALRC will consider the best way to provide all Australian courts with a suitable range of sentencing alternatives for imposing punishment on federal offenders. The ALRC also will need to consider current debates about the merits of short sentences of imprisonment and the application of guideline judgments.
Prof Weisbrot said the ALRC would immediately begin a period of research and community consultation, and expected to release a paper for public comment in the first half of 2005.
The review is scheduled to be completed in early 2006.