Latest news with #courtreform
The Guardian
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Queensland to restrict good character references in sentencing of accused rapists
The consideration of good character references for accused rapists will be restricted under major Queensland court reforms but some advocates say it does not go far enough. The changes introduced to Queensland parliament this week are among the recommendations made by a Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council report into rape and sexual assault. Good character references from friends and families of accused rapists have traditionally been a consideration in a judge's decision on the sentence. The report recommended that the use of good character references, including evidence of the offender's standing and contributions in the community, should be restricted in sentencing. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'No one wants to hear that a rapist is all-round great person, a trustworthy mate, or that they're respected in the community – especially not their victim, bravely sitting in court,' the attorney general, Deb Frecklington, said. Frecklington said this law reform is very close to her heart. One of the last criminal matters when she was a lawyer involved a former school principal who had been the citizen of the year in her local community. A good character reference was taken into consideration during his sentencing. 'It is extremely distressing still for many of the victims,' she told parliament. The bill means good character references can only be used as a mitigating factor if it is relevant to the offender's prospects of rehabilitation or risk of offending. Courts can also decide not to treat the character reference as a mitigating factor depending on the 'nature and seriousness of the offence'. 'This will limit the use of problematic good character evidence,' Frecklington said. The bill also includes recognition of victim harm as an 'express purpose of sentencing' and ensuring courts do not draw any inference about whether the victim was harmed from the fact that no victim impact statement was given. The introduction of the laws was welcomed by the state opposition, who had lobbied for changes, calling it a win for sexual assault victim survivors. 'These new laws will empower victim-survivors and ensure that perpetrators are held accountable,' the shadow attorney general, Meaghan Scanlon, said. The state's victims' commissioner, Beck O'Connor, tentatively welcomed the change but claimed it does not go far enough. She said the laws should be strengthened to mean courts do not give any consideration to good character references in any circumstances. 'Victim-survivors continue to share their distress and trauma about the acceptance and reliance of character references, with little to no effort made by anyone to verify the content,' O'Connor said. 'Completely preventing the use of good character evidence is the best way to show victims they are being listened to, and their significant concerns have been addressed.' A review of sentencing guidelines in New South Wales is under way, while the use of good character references remains in other states and territories. Good character references for child sexual abuse offenders were removed in Tasmania in 2016. Information and support for anyone affected by rape or sexual abuse issues is available from the following organisations. In Australia, support is available at 1800Respect (1800 737 732). In the UK, Rape Crisis offers support on 0808 500 2222. In the US, Rainn offers support on 800-656-4673. Other international helplines can be found at
Telegraph
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
First-time offenders may lose right to jury trial, minister hints
People accused of lower level crimes such as shoplifting and drug possession for the first time could lose their right to being tried by a jury, a justice minister has indicated. Sarah Sackman, the courts minister, said it was a 'big question' being considered by the Government's independent review of the criminal courts whether such first-time offenders should continue to have a right to jury trial. The review, headed by Sir Brian Leveson, the High Court judge, is expected to recommend that all people accused of offences such as some thefts, drug possession and assaults will no longer be able to opt for a jury trial as part of a 'once-in-a-generation' shake up of the court system to reduce record backlogs and delays. But he is under pressure to allow some exceptions for those accused of a first offence who might, for example, have simply forgotten to pay for a shopping item but would be denied the chance to try to clear their names in front of a jury of their peers – with the consequences of a conviction potentially career-ending. 'That's going to be a big question for Sir Brian,' said Ms Sackman, who suggested that any defendant would – and should – get a fair trial irrespective of whether it was before a jury in a Crown Court or magistrates. 'Ultimately, the duty of the state is to ensure a fair trial, and there is no evidence to suggest that when it comes either to rates of conviction, or in terms of sentencing practice, any differential between the magistrates or the sorts of justice one gets in the Crown Court,' she told Joshua Rozenberg, a solicitor and leading legal commentator, on his podcast, A Lawyer Talks. 'There actually ought to not to be any differential in terms of the quality of the justice that that individual receives, whether that's in the magistracy or in front of the Crown Court, and indeed, for that individual, quick resolution, getting an outcome is actually the real prize. 'Because where cases are taking two or three years to come to court and having knock-on effects for the trial of other crimes such as rape or murder, that truly, in my view, becomes corrosive of the fairness of our entire justice process.' Ms Mahmood has commissioned Sir Brian to review ways in which defendants' rights to jury trials could be scaled back without undermining fair justice. This could see magistrates hearing more serious cases, some defendants losing the right to ask for their case to be tried before a jury and the creation of a new intermediate court, which would replace a jury with one judge and two magistrates. The right to a jury trial extends back to the 13th century, and ministers are adamant that serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter, sexual assaults – including rape – assault causing grievous bodily harm, aggravated burglary and arson with intent will still be tried before their peers in crown court. Ms Sackman also suggested there could be judge-only trials for complex fraud cases, regulatory and environment crimes where there are large amounts of expert evidence. 'All options are on the table,' said Ms Sackman. 'We'll have to see if Sir Brian regards any of those as suitable candidates for a judge trial.' She said the current backlog – where, for example, rape victims were waiting two to three years for justice – was unsustainable. 'The old maxim that justice delayed is justice denied, rings true in this case,' she said. 'What we're talking about here is, how do we get swifter justice for victims, better value for the taxpayer, and indeed, for those who are accused of a crime that they may not have committed, ensuring that they're not prolonged in that state of limbo. 'The reclassification of offences would mean taking a cohort of cases out of the Crown Court into the magistrates where they'd be tried as summary only offences. To give you some context, some 90 per cent of cases are currently tried without a jury in the magistrates' court.' She added: 'When people are waiting for years for their day in court, for justice to be done, that ultimately deprives that person of a fair trial. And it's not just unfair to the individual, it's actually corrosive of our entire system and confidence.'
