The following residents of the ACT draw the attention of the Assembly there are significant public concerns that our judiciary are unable to unwilling to apply the intent of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 and the Common Law precedence (Veen v The Queen 1988, Muldrock v The Queen 2011) where equal weighting of the 7 purposes for sentencing need to be considered. Sentencing is not meeting community expectations.
It is considered if this non-application of sentencing practices is due to their own legal and personal bias, prejudices or political persuasions then they should be considered unfit for office and removed from their position by the Attorney-General. There are concerns the sentencing is influenced by lack of capacity and services available with ACT Corrective Services.
If the Attorney-General does not wish for a review of the performance of the judiciary due to his own legal and personal bias, prejudices or political persuasions then he should be considered unfit for office and removed from his position by the Chief Minister.
Your petitioners, therefore, request the Assembly to call upon the Government to, as part of the current budget submissions, propose funding the following reviews:
- independent review of the judgments and decisions of the ACT Judiciary regarding sentencing. This review should be for the last 5 years and in reference to the intent of the purpose of sentencing under the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005, where no purpose should be given greater weight than any other purpose;
The review also needs to the cognisant and include the complimentary components of the justice system;
- review of the corrective services framework in treating recidivism;
- review of the current capacity and suitability of correctional facilities, rehabilitation programs (in prison and community including drug and alcohol addiction programs) with the ACT corrective services;
- a commitment to trial of electronic tagging community-based order program and its complementary effect on re-offending.