“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.

What sort of mandatory penalties should we have?

The argument in favour of a widespread fixed penalty regime - adopting a primary rationale for punishment would facilitate a more coherent and exacting approach to sentencing - the central objections against fixed penalties are that they are too severe and lead to unfairness because they are unable to incorporate all the relevant sentencing variables - by adopting a utilitarian ethic as the primary rationale for punishment, these problems can be circumvented - no utilitarian justification for disproportionate punishment, and penalties should not exceed the seriousness of the offence - no foundation for most sentencing considerations - by disregarding irrelevant considerations, the remaining can be incorporated into a fixed penalty system - the way would then be open for a coherent sentencing law system in which criminal justice is governed by pre-determined rules and principles as opposed to the intuition of sentencers.

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.

The sentencing advisory commission and the hope of smarter sentencing

Sentencing law practice - confused and incoherent Sentencing has been described as the 'high point in anti-jurisprudence' (Smith 1997:174). This comment reflects the fact that sentencing law is devoid of an overarching rationale. It is marked by a high degree of discretion and is shaped more by political expedience and intuition than informed inquiry and principle. The fact that sentencing is 'the most controversial and politically sensitive aspect of the criminal law' (Freckleton 1996:ix) has militated heavily against it being developed in a coherent and principled manner.

The disunity of employment law and sentencing

This article discusses the lack of integration between criminal sanctions and employment deprivations (in the form of being dismissed from employment or disqualified from working in certain industries). Offenders who are employed in certain industries, especially the professions, often suffer a far greater net punishment upon being found guilty of a criminal offence than other offenders, thereby violating the principle of proportionality and the (related) principle of equality in the impact of sanctions. The reason that such a situation has developed is because criminal sanctions and employment deprivations have evolved from different streams of jurisprudence. This article argues that sentencers should impose a ‘net’ sanction for a criminal offence, thereby merging these streams of jurisprudence. This would require courts to be vested with the power to suspend or disqualify people from being employed in certain occupations. The legal analysis in this article focuses on case and statutory law in Australia, however, the same broad principles apply in all common law jurisdictions, including the UK. Hence, the reform proposals suggested in this article are relevant throughout the common law world.

The evolution of sentencing

The Sentencing Advisory Council's addition to the Victorian Criminal Justice landscape opens the way for Victorian sentencing law and practice to become a more socially acceptable, constructive, and forensic practice, this article suggests a blueprint for a more coherent and justifiable system of sentencing

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?

Doing harder time : the effects of imprisonment as a factor in sentencing

A strong link between the offender’s ill-health and the likely adverse effects of imprisonment needs to be made if the court is to be persuaded that this should be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

Scientific proof that humans enjoy punishing wrongdoers: The implications for punishment and sentencing

Recent developments in brain science confirm that as a race we are in fact a punitive lot. Human beings actually derive pleasure from inflicting punishment on wrongdoers. We are wired in such a way that the part of our brain that reports pleasure is activated when we punish norm violators. This is even when punishment has no tangible or demonstrable benefits. However, we are not slaves lo our emotions. Another region of our brain 'kicks-in' if punishment becomes self-defeating, in that it conflicts with our other interests. The implications of this research for punishment theory and the practice of sentencing are discussed in this paper. The findings give qualified support to the theory known as intrinsic retributivism, but do not suggest it is the soundest theory of punishment. This is because we stop punishing when it comes at a cost to us. The good feeling that punishment invokes in punishers is another consequential consideration in favour of the utilitarian theory of punishment. However, it is not clear that the utilitarian calculus is necessarily affected by the findings. The main implication of the research findings relates to the relevance of public opinion to sentencing practice. The findings support the view that public sentiment, which seems to support increasingly tougher sanctions, can be curtailed of the public are informed that punishment comes of a cost to community.

Multi-jurisdictional merger review procedures - a better way

Corporate mergers whose effects transcend national borders have faced increasing regulation over the past few decades as more jurisdictions have developed merger laws and imposed pre-merger notification requirements. The level of regulatory response to multi-jurisdictional mergers is likely to continue to increase as even more jurisdictions contemplate the introduction of competition laws. This level of regulation now goes beyond that required to protect national economies from potentially harmful mergers and has seen burgeoning costs to business, regulators and, ultimately, the public. In recognition of this, the relatively newly formed International Competition Network has placed merger regulation at the forefront of its agenda for greater harmonisation and cooperation in competition law. This has seen, over the past three years, the development of a set of guiding principles and recommended practices for merger notification procedures designed to reduce the regulatory burden. This article evaluates these recommendations and discusses areas for further reform.

The role of informal groups in organisational knowledge work : understanding an emerging community of practice

Managers and researchers alike have sought new ways to address the challenges of sharing dispersed knowledge in modern business environments. Careful consideration by sharers of receivers’ knowledge needs and behaviours may improve the effectiveness of knowledge sharing. This research examines how sharers react to their perceptions of receivers’ knowledge needs and behaviours when making choices relating to sharing knowledge. The focus of this article is to propose and empirically explore a theoretical framework for a study of the role of the receiver in knowledge sharing — receiver-based theory. Data collected from two case studies highlight a key role played by perceived receiver knowledge needs and behaviours in shaping sharer choices when explicit knowledge is shared. A set of receiver influences on knowledge sharing is provided that highlights key receiver and sharer issues. The paper concludes that companies should develop better ways to connect potential sharers with receivers’ real knowledge needs. Further, the findings suggest that sharing on a need-to-know basis hinders change in organisational power structures, and prevents the integration of isolated pockets of knowledge that may yield new value.