Life Sentence Redetermination Applications

Mr TONY STEWART: Can the Minister for Police update the House on efforts to ensure that offenders sentenced to life in prison before the 1989 truth-in-sentencing laws cannot traumatise the families of victims by repeatedly dragging them through the courts?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The Iemma Government is committed to supporting victims of crime and doing everything possible to minimise the trauma they have to endure. Today the Attorney General revealed that legislation will be introduced to restrict sentence redeterminations for offenders serving life sentences that were imposed before the 1989 truth-in-sentencing laws came into force. Under the new laws offenders will get only one chance to have their life sentences redetermined, thereby sparing their victims the anguish of multiple court hearings. The changes mean that pre-1989 life sentence inmates will have only one chance at having a sentence redetermination heard by the court, they will be able to withdraw or reapply an application only with the leave of the court, and substantial weight will be placed on the heinous nature of their crime by the court when it makes its decision.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for South Coast will cease interjecting.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: These important new laws will protect victims and their families from being retraumatised by repeatedly being dragged through the courts. Until now offenders such as John Cribb, a triple murderer, have been able to apply multiple times to the Supreme Court to have their sentences redetermined. It has meant that victims' families have had to go through the trauma of reliving terrible crimes over and over. Under the new laws offenders will be allowed just one more redetermination. If they are unsuccessful they will stay in prison and will not be able to reapply. They will stay in prison where they belong.

Prior to the commencement of the Sentencing Act 1989 a scheme known as the release on licence scheme operated. Whilst life imprisonment was the maximum penalty available for murder, most offenders sentenced to a term of life imprisonment under the release on licence scheme served a term in prison considerably less than their natural life—on average, fewer than 12 years in jail. With changes to truth-in-sentencing laws, offenders sentenced under the new system received either a life sentence—meaning the term of their natural life—or a fixed maximum sentence with a non-parole period. But there has been no limit to the number of times these offenders can seek a redetermination.

Every time offenders make an application the families of the victims go through the stress and trauma of preparing themselves mentally, writing victim impact statements and appearing in court. And often, after enduring that stress, they find that the offender withdraws the application. This issue was brought to the fore by the case of John Cribb, who withdrew his application on the day of the hearing earlier this year. The Attorney General met with Gary Connell and his sisters, who are the relatives of the victims of John Cribb's terrible crimes. I am privileged to acknowledge the presence of members of the Connell family in the gallery today. After listening to their concerns the Iemma Government has brought forward a bill to restrict life sentence redeterminations to protect such victims. As of today, each of the 17 old system life sentence inmates will receive only one further redetermination. Offenders get only one opportunity at being sentenced. There is no reason why these old system life sentence inmates should be able to reapply over and over again without limit.

In order to prevent tactical withdrawals and reapplications, or judge shopping, once an offender makes an application they can withdraw it or reapply only with the leave of the court. This will allow the Crown to argue against a withdrawal that is not made for a legitimate reason. In considering whether to grant leave the court will be required to give substantial weight to the number of previous withdrawals and reapplications the offender has made. Some of the criminals who will be affected by this law are among the worst of the worst. That is why the bill will add an important new factor that the court must consider when deciding these redeterminations: the heinous nature of the crime. The Supreme Court will be required to give substantial weight to the culpability of the offender in the commission of the offence and the heinous nature of the crime.

Victims of crime groups have welcomed the changes to the law restricting redeterminations and I acknowledge the advice they have given the Government in the preparation of this legislation. In support of the bill, Howard Brown from the Victims of Crime Assistance League said:

Victims need certainty. They need to know that, when they prepare themselves to appear in court, it will be the last time they have to do it.

Martha Jabour from the Homicide Victims Support Group, who I note is in the gallery today, stated:

I have worked with Gary Connell and his sisters over the last 15 years along with other family members of homicide who will be assisted by this legislation.

This legislation will help to protect them from the trauma of having to go back to court every few years.

Ken Marslew from Enough is Enough said:

Requiring the courts to consider how terrible the offender's crimes were is a big improvement. Some of these offenders should never be released as they are a possible risk to both the community and themselves.

The legislation will apply to applications lodged from today. We have taken this step to prevent a rush of applications being made seeking to circumvent the legislation whilst it is before Parliament. I urge the members sitting opposite to support the bill.