eCite Digital Repository

The Role of Guideline Judgments in the Law and Order Debate in Australia

Citation

Warner, K, The Role of Guideline Judgments in the Law and Order Debate in Australia, Criminal Law Journal, 27, (1) pp. 8-22. ISSN 0314-1160 (2003) [Refereed Article]


Preview
PDF
Restricted - Request a copy
2Mb
  

Abstract

Guideline judgments have been a prominent sentencing issue in Australia since October 1998 when the Chief Justice of New South Wales handed down Australia's first "guideline judgment'. Spigelman CJ went to some lengths to ensure that this event was given plenty of exposure in the press and guideline judgments were embraced by the New South Wales Government as a key element of its law and order policy. Guideline judgments have since been handed down in a further four cases. One of them, Wong (1999) 48 NSWLR 340; 108 A Crim R 531, went on appeal to the High Court where a number of judges strongly criticised numerical guidelines. The New South Wales Govemment reacted angrily with threats to introduce mandatory sentencing if the High Court continued to criticise guideline judgments. Subsequently, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Whyte [2002J NSWCCA 343 responded to Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001 J HCA 64 anci endorsed the practice of numerical guidelines, but less that three weeks after this decision the New South Wales Government announced a new legislative sentencing scheme which has the potential to seriously undermine judiciaIly created guidelines. While New South Wales is the only state to have actuaIly promulgated "guideline judgments" in name, in Western AVstralia there is statutory provision for gUidf!/ine judgments and they are under consideration in South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania. Although, in an election climate, guideline judgments are no longer seen by either the Labor Government or the Coalition Opposition as a sufficient means of meeting community demands for a tougher approach to crime, this article argues that they have considerable potential as a means of reinforcing public confidence in the integrity of the process of sentencing without the need to resort to punitive populist policy measures such as minimum sentences.

Item Details

Item Type:Refereed Article
Research Division:Law and Legal Studies
Research Group:Law
Research Field:Law not elsewhere classified
Objective Division:Law, Politics and Community Services
Objective Group:Justice and the Law
Objective Field:Justice and the Law not elsewhere classified
Author:Warner, K (Professor Kate Warner)
ID Code:28505
Year Published:2003
Deposited By:Law
Deposited On:2003-08-01
Last Modified:2010-05-13
Downloads:10 View Download Statistics

Repository Staff Only: item control page