“People’s law” and restorative justice: the success of circle sentencing in New South Wales

Informal sentencing procedures in remote Indigenous communities of Australia have been occurring for some time, but it was in the late 1990s that formalization of the practice began in urban areas with the advent of Indigenous sentencing and circle courts. These circle courts emerged primarily to address the over-representation and incarceration of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system. The first Indigenous urban court was assembled in Port Adelaide, South Australia in June 1999 and was named the Nunga Court. Courts emerging since in other states are based on the Nunga Court model, although they have been adapted to suit local conditions. The practice of circle sentencing was introduced in New South Wales (NSW) in Nowra in February 2002.

Changing provocation law could legitimise lethal acts of domestic violence

The O'Farrell government must reconsider their recommendation to retain a restricted version of the controversial partial defence of provocation. The government has released a draft exposure bill recommending reform of a partial defence that has long attracted criticism and community concern. Under the proposed reform, the defence will be significantly restricted and will be renamed the "partial defence of extreme provocation".

Supplier integrity due diligence in public procurement: limiting the criminal risk to Australia

The potential for criminals and terrorism financiers to secure lucrativegovernment contracts poses a risk to Australia’s anti-money laundering,anti-corruption and counter-terrorism financing objectives. This articlecompares the customer due diligence measures that banks are required to implement to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing with the general supplier due diligence practices and processes of key Australian government departments and agencies. It identifies various weaknesses in current procurement practices relating to standard contracts and argues that these render Australian public procurement vulnerable to criminal abuse, threaten compliance with its sanctions regime and potentially undermine the crime combating objectives of its money laundering and terrorism financinglaws. The article recommends that the national interest calls for awhole-of-government approach to improve supplier due diligence in public procurement.

Excessive criminal punishment amounts to punishing the innocent : an argument for taking the parsimony principle seriously

Punishing the innocent is incontestably repugnant. Punishing offenders more harshly than is justified is a form of punishing the innocent, yet this practice is commonplace in the United States. This Article sets out a normative argument in favor of less severe penalties for many forms of offenses. There is already an established principle, which limits punishment to the minimum amount of hardship that is required to achieve the objectives of sentencing. The principle is termed “parsimony” and is widely endorsed. Yet, in reality, it is illusory. It has no firm content and in its current form is logically and jurisprudentially incapable of grounding a persuasive argument for more lenient sentences. This Article gives content to the principle of parsimony. It is argued that application of the principle will result in a considerable reduction in the number of offenders who are sentenced to imprisonment and shorter sentences for many offenders who are jailed. The recommendations in this Article will enhance the fairness and transparency of the sentencing system. The argument is especially important at this point in history. The United States is experiencing an incarceration crisis. The principle of parsimony, properly applied, is an important key to ameliorating the incarceration problem. The Article also examines the operation of the parsimony principle in Australia. Unlike sentencing courts in the United States, Australian judges enjoy considerable discretion in sentencing offenders. Despite the vastly different approach to sentencing in Australia, it too is experiencing a considerable increase in the incarceration rate. It emerges that the courts in a tightly regimented sentencing regime (the United States) and a mainly discretionary system (Australia) effectively ignored the parsimony principle. It is not the strictures in the United States that curtail the imposition of parsimonious sentences; rather, it is the absence of a forceful rationale underpinning the principle and a lack of clarity regarding the attainable objectives of sentencing. This Article addresses these shortcomings. In doing so, it paves the way for fundamentally fairer sentencing outcomes in the United States and Australia.

The naming of child homicide offenders in England and Wales: the need for a change in law and practice

Judicial decisions about whether or not to publicly name child homicide offenders have long ani- mated debate in the United Kingdom and internationally. This article draws on case law and in- depth interviews conducted with members of the English criminal justice system to critically analyse the viability of current domestic legislation in the context of the UK’s international human rights obligations. The article identifies ambiguities surrounding the definition of ‘public interest’ in law; the merits of equating the naming of child offenders with open justice, accountability and transpar- ency; and the increasing sabotage of the principle of rehabilitation. By identifying the complexities of this contentious area of judicial discretion, this article highlights the need for a rights-based approach to decisions about publicly naming children in conflict with the law.