Costs and benefits of mandatory auditing of for-profit private and not-for-profit companies in Australia

This paper addresses the paucity of research surrounding the mandatory auditing of for-profit private and not-for-profit companies in Australia. We document the various mandatory auditing provisions under the Corporations Act and identify over 22 000 companies that lodge audited accounts with the regulator under federal law. In 2011, 6339 large proprietary companies, 186 small proprietary companies, 2797 foreign-owned companies, 3985 unlisted public companies and 8404 public companies limited by guarantee had an obligation under the Corporations Act to lodge audited accounts. While large proprietary and foreign-owned companies have an option to apply to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission for audit relief, we estimate that less than 10% are granted audit exemption. We document that since 1995 an additional 1500 large proprietary companies that should have lodged under the size provisions of the Corporations Act have been granted exemption from doing so (i.e., grandfathered), although these firms appear to be subject to an annual audit even though they do not lodge accounts. We estimate the costs and discuss the potential public interest and firm-level benefits associated with the mandatory auditing of for-profit private and not-for-profit companies in Australia.

An argument for uniform Australian sentencing law

Sentencing law and practice impacts on fundamental individual interests, both from the perspective of offenders and victims. It also affects community safety and security The scope of sentencing law and its principal objectives are broadly similar throughout Australia. However, there are many important differences, especially in relation to sentencing practice, with some jurisdictions appearing to impose considerably heavier penalties for certain offence types. This article argues that uniform sentencing law should be implemented throughout Australia. The likely benefits would extend beyond achieving greater consistency in sentencing outcomes. A move toward uniform national sentencing laws would provide the catalyst for an objective, evidence-based review of sentencing policy and practice, thereby providing a vehicle for harmonising the law with a wealth of empirical data regarding the objectives that can be achieved through a system of state-imposed sanctions. It would also present a meaningful opportunity for a normative assessment of the justifiable operation of sentencing law. The main impediment to uniform sentencing laws is likely to come from state and territory governments seeking to maintain control over this often socially controversial area as a means of securing and maintaining community support. However, this obstacle is not necessarily insurmountable. It is not clear whether sentencing policy is, in fact, a main driver of voter preferences. Some politicians may prefer to have ·national uniformity' as a buffer to counteract reflexive calls for tougher sentencing that often occur following particularly serious crimes or seemingly light sentences handed down by courts.

Injecting content into the mirage that is proportionality in sentencing

Sentencing involves the deliberate infliction of harm by society on individuals. It is the most coercive means through which the community imposes its collective (albeit civilised) displeasure at harmful conduct. It is an important and complex process, which involves balancing fundamental interests of victims and the community on the one hand and offenders on the other. The single most important determinant in setting criminal sanctions is the principle of proportionality, which provides that the harshness of the penalty should match the seriousness of the offence. The principle is intuitively appealing but in reality is an illusion, and hence the reason why penalties for criminal offences vary enormously within and across jurisdictions. The main reason is because there is no agreement regarding the considerations that inform offence severity or sanction hardship. This article injects content into the proportionality principle by suggesting that both limbs of the principle should be informed by the extent to which the crime and the sanction set back the well-being of victims and offenders, respectively. These interests are not conclusively mapped. However, a methodology is set out for establishing these interests. This will lead to greater consistency in sentencing and provide a sounder, normative foundation for the manner in which society deals with criminals.

“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.

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.

A Rational Approach To Sentencing White- Collar Offenders in Australia

There are no overarching (and few settled) principles governing the sentencing of white-collar offenders. This is especially the situation in relation to the relevance of public opprobrium to the sentencing calculus and the manner in which employment deprivations stemming from the penalty impact on the sentence. To the extent that there is general convergence in the approach to sentencing white-collar offenders, the approach is often not sound. This is the case in relation to the minor sentencing discount accorded for previous good character, and the prevailing orthodoxy which assumes that offences targeted at major institutions, such as banks, meaningfully impair community confidence in such institutions. Fundamental reform of the manner in which white-collar offenders are sentenced is necessary in order to make this area of law more coherent and doctrinally sound. These reforms include providing a significant and pre-determined discount for restitution, reducing the weight given to general deterrence in the sentencing calculus, and providing a greater discount for previous good character and employment deprivations suffered as a direct result of the sentence. Further, crimes against individuals should be regarded as being more serious than those committed against large corporations or the public revenue. The article focuses on the existing law in Australia, however, the reform proposals and doctrinal analysis could be applied to all jurisdictions.

The senseless war : the sentencing drug offenses arms race

There has been a considerable increase in the penalties for drug trafficking following the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, over fifty years ago. In many parts of the world, the sanctions are as severe as those for homicide and rape. This penalty escalation is at odds with the counter movement to decriminalise illicit drugs. Drug supplying is the only serious crime where there are widespread moves to decriminalize the main outcome of the crime – the use illicit drugs. This paper explores this paradox. It also examines the rationales for the increasingly harsh penalties for drug suppliers. We conclude that while there is no conclusive argument in favour of the decriminalizing drugs, the weight of empirical data does not establish any concrete benefits stemming from severe penalties for serious drug offenses. In particular, there is no correlation between longer prison terms for drug offenders and a reduction in the availability and use of drugs. We propose that the penalties for drug offenses should be reduced considerably. There is no useful objective that can be achieved by a twenty-five-year term of imprisonment that cannot be achieved by a term of five to ten years. A more measured sentencing response to serious drug offense penalties would make sentencing fairer and enable billions of dollars currently directed to imprisonment to be spent on more pressing community needs.

Proportionality in sentencing: the need to factor in community experience, not public opinion

This is the first book to address the question of what role public opinion should play in the way criminal offenders are punished.Should public opinion determine—or even influence—sentencing policy and practice? Should the punishment of criminal offenders reflect what the public regards as appropriate? These deceptively simple questions conceal complex theoretical and methodological challenges to the administration of punishment.In the West, politicians have often answered these questions in the affirmative; penal reforms have been justified with direct reference to the attitudes of the public. This is why the contention that politicians should bridge the gap between the public and criminal justice practice has widespread resonance. Criminal law scholars, for their part, have often been more reluctant to accept public input in penal practice, and some have even held that the idea of consulting public opinion constitutes a populist approach to punishment.The purpose of this book is to examine the moral significance of public opinion for penal theory and practice. For the first time in a single volume the editors, Jesper Ryberg and Julian V. Roberts, have assembled a number of respected criminologists, philosphers, and legal theorists to address the various aspects of why and how public opinion should be reflected in the way the criminal justice system deals with criminals. The chapters address the myriad complexities surrounding this issue by first weighing the justifications for incorporating public views into punishment practices and then considering the various ways this might be achieved through juries, prosecutors, restoratifve justice programs, and other means.

Sentencing: from vagueness to arbitrariness - the need to abolish the stain that is the instinctive synthesis

Criminal sanctions involve the deliberate infliction of hardship on offenders. In sentencing, the state acts in its most coercive and decisive manner: ‘the state may use its most awesome power: the power to use force against its citizens and others’. Despite the importance of the interests at stake in the sentencing realm,sentencing is arguably the least coherent, predictable and principled area of law. The High Court of Australia has not facilitated attempts to inject clarity and precision into sentencing determinations. It has repeatedly endorsed the ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach to sentencing, emphasising the need for ‘individual justice’ over the need for transparency and a step-wise systematic approach to sentencing.