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?

What are the offence and offender risk factors for Indigenous repeat drink drivers in Queensland?

In Australia and internationally, there is scant information about Indigenous repeat drink drivers. The aim was to identify the risk factors associated with repeat offending. De-identified data on drink driving convictions by offenders identifying as Indigenous in Queensland between 2006 and 2010 were examined. A range of univariate analyses were used to compare first time and repeat offenders on gender, age, court location and region (based on the accessibility/remoteness index of Australia), blood alcohol concentration and sentencing severity. Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for confounding variables. Convictions for repeat offenders were more likely from locations other than ‘major cities’ with the association strongest for courts in the ‘very remote’ region (OR=2.75, 2.06-3.76, p<.001). Indigenous offenders 40 years or older were found to be at reduced risk in comparison to offenders aged 15-24 years (OR=0.68, 0.54-0.86, p=0.01). After controlling for confounding factors, gender, sentencing severity and blood alcohol concentration levels were not significantly associated with recidivism. The association of recidivism and remoteness is consistent with higher rates of alcohol-related transport accidents involving Indigenous Australians in isolated areas. This study provides a platform for future research and allows for early attempts to address the need for intervention to reduce Indigenous drink driving recidivism.

Alcohol restrictions and drink driving in remote Indigenous communities in Queensland, Australia

Alcohol restrictions have been implemented in many Indigenous communities internationally, with the aim to reduce alcohol-related harm. Whilst a range of reviews have evaluated such restrictions using different measures, drink driving has been described in several reviews as increasing. Presently, this remains anecdotal; with limited empirical evidence to corroborate these reports. In Australia, the Queensland government introduced alcohol management plans in remote Indigenous communities, during 2002-2003, with total alcohol prohibition commencing in 2008 in some communities. Given road crashes are one of the leading causes of injuries for Indigenous peoples, this study aims to identify if the restrictions have been successful in reducing drink driving or have increased such behaviour. We examine this by reviewing changes in conviction rates and in offender and offence characteristics following the 2008 restrictions. Using de-identified Queensland court drink driving conviction data (2006-2011), from four Indigenous communities, Robust Poisson regression models compared counts of drink driving convictions pre (2006-2008) versus post SRS (2009-2011). Changes in offender characteristics and conviction details (blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and sentencing severity), were examined using chi-squares. Results indicate a decline in convictions after the 2008 SRS in three communities. However, a significant increase in convictions was identified in one study community. Community-level disparity included significant decline in BAC in one community (χ 2=5.58, p=0.02) compared with the three other communities that did not indicate change and a significant increase the number of women convicted in two communities (χ 2=17.36, p<0.01; χ 2=5.79, p=0.04). Alcohol restrictions may have important implications in road safety with these reductions in convictions and BAC in some communities. However, an increase in the number of women convicted and limited changes in BAC for other communities demonstrate the complex relationship between alcohol use, remoteness and driving. Greater focus on demand reduction strategies may be necessary to address alcohol misuse.

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.