“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.

After three strikes-the continued discriminatory impact of the sentencing system against indigenous Australians: suggested reform

Three strikes laws are discriminatory but not for previously advanced reasons. The three strikes laws are merely an acute example of a fundamentally flawed sentencing system that discriminates against economically and socially disadvantaged people, particularly the group that is the focus of this article – Indigenous Australians. The repeal of the Northern Territory's mandatory sentencing laws has not remedied the unfair manner in which sentencing law and practice operate against Aboriginals; either in the Northern Territory or generally. Criminal punishment systems around the world punish a disproportionate number of socially deprived people. In Australia, Indigenous Australians were grossly over-represented in Australian jails prior to the three strikes laws and will remain so unless steps are taken to address their disadvantage. The obvious solution to redress the over-representation by Indigenous Australians is to provide them with the same social opportunities and resources as the rest of the community. This is overly ambitious – at least in the short term. This article suggests a more attainable change in sentencing law to remedy some of the disadvantages experienced by Aboriginals. It suggests that far less weight should be accorded to prior convictions in the sentencing calculus.

Sentencing of indigenous offenders in Victoria

It is common knowledge, especially in the context of the findings of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC),' that indigenous persons are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, little has changed since the RCIADIC and indigenous representation in prisons throughout the states and territories of Australia remains at high levels. What has come to prominence since the RCIADIC, particularly through the findings of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in the 1997 report Bringing Them Home, is the notion of the Stolen Generation. For practitioners with indigenous clients, an important matter that may be put in mitigation is the effect of belonging to the Stolen Generation in terms of offering not only an explanation for offending, but also in terms of submissions put forward on behalf of the client pertaining to disposition. In this context, the Victorian Court of Appeal decision in R v Fuller-Cust is an important one, particularly the dissenting judgment of Eames J. His Honour, in a persuasive and well-reasoned judgment, suggests a method of sentencing indigenous offenders that relates questions of Aboriginality, the Stolen Generation and punishment.

Linkages: Mabo and the sentencing of indigenous offenders

The ground breaking decision by the High Court of Australia in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) overturned the principle of terra nullis as a legal fiction. It paved the way for a reconsideration of property law. Mabo arguably has significance beyond native title and property law to other areas of the law. This article examines the 'linkage' between the decision in Mabo and the criminal law and, in particular, the punishment of indigenous persons, it addresses the following question: Can a significantly distant temporal and physical act of dispossession as was recognized in Mabo have any relevance to contemporary questions of the punishment of indigenous persons?

The need for a higher custody threshold for indigenous offenders in Victoria

Over-representation of indigenous persons in the criminal justice system has changed little since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) - claim by the Victorian Department of Justice that a key recommendation of RCIADIC had been implemented, namely that imprisonment should be a sentence of last resort for indigenous offenders - how to ensure that imprisonment is a sanction of last resort when indigenous prisoners present for sentence.

Just deserts in post-colonial society : problems in the punishment of indigenous offenders.

Revised version of a paper presented to the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Conference, Sydney, 2-3 October 2003 - disproportionate number of indigenous persons in the criminal justice system - the concept of 'just deserts' in regard to indigenous punishment - legislative reforms are needed to empower the judiciary in the sentencing process - must take account of the historical fact of dispossession - destructive effects on indigenous communities.

Just deserts in a post-colonial society : problems in the punishment of indigenous offenders

An enduring aspect of the operation of the criminal justice system in Australia has been the disproportionate representation of indigenous persons. Under current sentencing principles, aboriginality can be taken into account as a factor in mitigation because of the nature of social and economic disadvantage suffered by indigenous communities. It is contended that such an approach is inadequate as it fails to comprehend the reasons for that disadvantage. In short, the effects of colonialism and dispossession. An account of punishment will be developed that colonialism and dispossession cannot be omitted from any satisfactory account of the theory and history of punishment of indigenous persons. By relying on the notion of ‘just deserts’ an account of punishment will be proposed that extends the categories currently put forward to justify punishing indigenous persons. Traditional, philosophical accounts of punishment and insights from critical race theory will both be used in an attempt to articulate what ‘just deserts’ means in the context of a post-colonial society.

Sentencing in Australia

Sentencing in Australia provides an up-to-date explanation of sentencing law and practice in all nine Australian jurisdictions.

Sentencing is the area of law which consumes most court of appeal work and this title satisfies the need for a thorough and coherent treatment of this complex subject, which involves a wide range of complex and interacting factors.

In this new work, lawyer and academic Mirko Bagaric and barrister Richard Edney consider the law across Australia. They examine existing practice and provide extensive analysis of the objectives of sentencing, in the form of incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and proportionality.

The work systematically and comprehensively covers key mitigating and aggravating factors and the considerations which strongly influence sentencing determinations.

Australian democracy and indigenous self-determination, 1901-2001

Eight major essays by leading social scientists on key elements of Australian institutional life.

Indigenous peoples, self-determination and international law

The article examines the re-emergence of indigenous rights in contemporary international law in the context of worldwide agitation by indigenous peoples for the adoption by the United Nations of a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Two approaches to the protection of indigenous rights are considered: a minimal one that relies on existing human rights conventions, and an inspirational one that seeks a Declaration negotiated in partnership with states willing to recognise indigenous autonomy. Attention is given to judicial recognition of the right to self-determination as a right of free choice, and to the distinction between minority rights and indigenous autonomy. The importance of defining indigenous self-determination in a positive way is emphasised, and prospects for a new UN permanent indigenous forum overcoming the stalemate about indigenous rights are reviewed in terms of the need for greater dialogue.