criminal law committee suzanne mortimer, lucia pante, rhonda pietrini, claire stimpson, andrew...

Download Criminal Law Committee Suzanne Mortimer, Lucia Pante, Rhonda Pietrini, Claire Stimpson, Andrew Tiedt,

Post on 20-Mar-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • NSW Young Lawyers Criminal Law Committee 170 Phillip Street Sydney NSW 2000

    ylgeneral@lawsociety.com.au www.younglawyers.com.au

    Response to question papers

    Parole: Question Papers 1-3

    1 November 2013

    NSW Law Reform Commission GPO Box 5199 SYDNEY NSW 2001 AUSTRALIA nsw_lrc@agd.nsw.gov.au Contact: Greg Johnson

    President, NSW Young Lawyers

    Alexander Edwards Chair, NSW Young Lawyers Criminal Law Committee

    Reviewers: Thomas Barbat Contributors: Caitlin Akthar, Aurhett Barrie, Vanessa Chan,

    James Chin, Matt Clarke, Rhonda Furner, Sam Hartridge, Jie Hu, Sharyn Jenkins, Sarah Khan, Catherine Kirkpatrick, Nicole Mazurek, Suzanne Mortimer, Lucia Pante, Rhonda Pietrini, Claire Stimpson, Andrew Tiedt, Matthew Ward and Greg Young

    Criminal Law Committee

  • 2

    Introduction The NSW Young Lawyers Criminal Law Committee ("the Committee") refers to the terms of reference given to the NSW Law Reform Commission (“the Commission”) on 1 March 2013 on improving the system of parole in NSW. The Committee has structured its submission by reference to the Commission’s Question Papers 1, 2 and 3.

    NSW Young Lawyers, a division of the Law Society of NSW, is made up of legal practitioners and law students, who are under the age of 36 or in their first five years of practice. Our membership is made up of some 13,000 persons.

    The Committee provides education to the legal profession and wider community on current and future developments in the criminal law, and identifies and submits on issues in need of law reform.

  • 3

    Table of Contents

    Question Paper 1 4

    Question Paper 2 7

    Question Paper 3 9

  • 4

    Question Paper 1 – The design and objectives of the parole system

    Question 1.1: Retention and objectives of parole

    1. Should parole be retained? Yes.

    2. If retained, what should be the objectives of th e parole system in NSW? The objectives of the parole system in NSW can be divided into two categories. The first applies while an offender is in custody; the second when an offender is released into the community on parole.

    While in custody , parole should provide prisoners with an incentive:

    • to be of good behaviour;

    • to comply with directions of Corrective Services;

    • to participate in prison treatment programs; and

    • to participate in education and work training programs.

    When released into the community on parole , the overarching purpose of parole should be to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders by guiding and facilitating their reintegration into the community.

    • To this end the Committee endorses the four principles set out on p.5 of Question Paper 1.

    3. Should there be an explicit statement of the obj ectives or purposes of parole in the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)? Yes.

    The statement should appear in a similar form to that in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (the “Sentencing Act”). The objectives or purposes should reflect those stated above at 1.1.2.

    Question 1.2: Design of the parole system

    1. Should NSW have automatic parole, discretionary parole, or a mixed system? The present mixed system should be retained.

    The Committee is not opposed to the NSW Law Reform Commission’s (‘the Commission’) suggestion that “automatic” parole be reframed to refer to release at the expiry of the non-parole period unless SPA orders otherwise.

    2. If a mixed system, how should offenders be alloc ated to either automatic or discretionary parole? See the Committee’s response to 1.2.1.

    The Committee is of the view that head sentences of 3 years or less is an appropriate cut off point for automatic parole and should be retained.

  • 5

    3. Does there need to be a mechanism to ensure supe rvised reintegration support for offenders serving short s entences? What should such a mechanism be? No.

    The Committee submits that sentences of imprisonment for 6 months or less are not serious enough, in the current funding environment, to warrant burdening Community Corrections with supervised reintegration support. Often, such sentences are imposed by sentencing courts as a “short, sharp stint in custody” to give an offender insight into what a lengthier period of incarceration might be like. An example might be a recidivist traffic offender with an otherwise clean record who has received escalating penalties resulting in eventual imprisonment.

    Question 1.3: Difficulties for accumulated and aggr egate sentences

    What changes should be made to legislation for aggr egate and accumulated approaches to sentencing to ensure cons istent outcomes for parole? The Committee does not suggest any changes to the current legislative approaches insofar as parole is concerned.

    Question 1.4: SPA’s power to take over decision mak ing responsibility

    1. What safeguards should there be on automatic par ole? SPA already has the power to impose special conditions on parole (s 128(1)(b) Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (“CAS Act”)), which can be used to alleviate any specific concerns held about risks posed by certain prisoners. The Committee agrees with the view expressed by other stakeholders that the power to revoke court-ordered parole ought be used only in exceptional circumstances.

    2. Should there be any changes to SPA’s power to ta ke over parole decision making for offenders with court based paro le orders? Yes.

    The Committee shares Legal Aid’s concern that s 51(1AA) of the Sentencing Act is sometimes responsible for SPA’s practice of revoking court-imposed parole before release if an offender is unable to nominate a place of residence in NSW. Given the adverse consequences this can have upon a person who has been rendered homeless (even if they had a fixed place of residence prior being incarcerated), the Committee submits that courts ought be given the power to review court-imposed conditions if SPA wishes to revoke them. The Committee proposes that, if SPA opposes a court-imposed parole order, there should be a notice period in which SPA is required to provide submissions to the sentencing court. This would give the parties the opportunity to address any relevant concerns and make submissions. The sentencing court could then determine whether to revoke or re-instate the original court-imposed parole order, with a binding effect upon SPA.

    Additionally, the Committee endorses the proposal in Question Paper 1 that Corrective Services should be required to assess an offender’s access to accommodation and begin making plans for accommodation at an early stage of the offender’s sentence.

  • 6

    Question 1.5: Supervised conditions on parole based orders

    Should there be any changes to the way supervision conditions are imposed on a court based parole order? Yes.

    Supervision ought be presumed and only deleted if the sentencing court expressly orders otherwise at the time of sentence.

    The Committee submits that a court order for there to be no supervision might be subject to a legislative safeguard, which would allow SPA to review the court’s decision if they are concerned about releasing an offender into the community unsupervised for a particular reason/s. The rationale here is that a court is not in a position to make an assessment as to how a person behaves in or responds to custody at the time of sentence and cannot be certain whether they would benefit from supervision when released. Corrective Services and SPA are, of course, in the best position to make this assessment.

  • 7

    Question Paper 2 – Membership of the State Parole Authority and Serious Offenders Review Council

    Question 2.1: Membership of SPA

    1. Does the balance of members on SPA or SPA’s divi sions need to be changed in any way? Yes.

    The Committee suggests that a return to seven members per division, with four of those members being community members, would satisfy a number of the perceived issues with SPA identified in Question Paper 2.

    The only caveat the Committee places over this proposal is whether SPA would be allocated the required resources to restore the previous position.

    2. How can the selection and performance of SPA’s c ommunity members be improved? Further transparency in the selection of community members is desired, involving a formal selection process and a set of standardised selection criteria that all applicants must meet. All members, not just community members, should be subject to a performance review system to maintain high standards of performance. Furthermore, there should be a mandatory requirement for SPA community members to undertake professional development courses each year.

    If the number of community members is returned to seven per division, a proportion of community members could be appointed for their specific expertise and a proportion could be representative of the community generally (say, 2 members of each per division). This would facilitate the utilisation of the expertise of certain community members, while at the same time representing broader community sentiment.

    Consideration should also be given to the social and cultural backgrounds of persons coming before SPA, and the Committee submits that the over-representation of indigenous persons s