With proposals to expand mandatory minimum sentencing for child sexual offences on the table, the Law Council of Australia has issued a stark warning, arguing that such measures risk undermining judicial independence and the ability of judges to exercise discretion.
The Liberal National Coalition this week introduced the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 in Parliament, aiming to ensure that those who “abuse, exploit, or prey” on children face meaningful justice.
Under the proposed bill, offenders convicted of serious Commonwealth child sexual abuse offences would face a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, increasing to six years for repeat offenders.
The bill also aims to close a “loophole” that the Coalition explained has allowed some offenders to “walk free” on recognisance release orders after serving only part of their sentences.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley explained that the move responds to public frustration over lenient sentencing and repeated failures to safeguard victims.
“When an offender produces and shares 77 images of child abuse material and walks free after six months, that is not justice, it is a betrayal,” Ley said.
“Australians expect strong laws that protect our children, not weak excuses that protect offenders. The Coalition will always stand on the side of victims and the community.”
However, the proposed expansion of mandatory minimum sentences has drawn significant criticism.
The Law Council of Australia has issued a stern warning that proposed expansions to mandatory minimum sentencing for child sexual offences could significantly undermine judicial independence and discretion, which it describes as the “bedrocks of our justice system”.
While acknowledging the severity of child sexual offences, Law Council president Juliana Warner stressed that the legislation represents a dangerous encroachment on judicial discretion.
“Sexual offences involving children are highly serious, and those who commit these heinous offences should receive appropriate sentences. Sentences must reflect the severity of the conduct and protect our community,” Warner said.
“However, in our view, expansion of the mandatory minimum sentencing scheme as proposed by the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 represents an undue incursion on judicial discretion.”
Currently, mandatory minimums target the most serious child sex offences and repeat offenders, but the Law Council warns that widening these rules could strip judges of the ability to tailor sentences to individual circumstances.
The LCA shared how the Attorney-General’s Department recently reviewed the current scheme and explicitly did not recommend expanding mandatory minimum provisions.
Highlighting the limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of mandatory sentencing as a deterrent, Warner underscored the need for reforms grounded in research and aimed at genuinely protecting the community.
“The Law Council supports sensible, evidence-based reform measures designed to keep the community safe, especially our most vulnerable members of society,” Warner said.
“However, there is a lack of compelling evidence as to the effectiveness of mandatory sentencing as a deterrent, or its ability to reduce crime.”
Warner stressed that judicial independence and discretion are the pillars of our justice system, ensuring judges can make decisions based on the law and evidence rather than popular opinion or shifting political pressures.
“Judicial independence and discretion have long underpinned our justice system – and must always do so,” Warner said.
“These principles ensure a judge is not swayed by the popular opinion of the moment or the shifting policy landscape, but rather can assess all relevant evidence and make decisions in the best interests of justice and in accordance with the law of the land.”
The president also warned that using a single sentencing decision to justify this bill sets a dangerous precedent, cautioning against sweeping legislative changes based on isolated cases.
“The Private Member’s Bill introduced this week appears to have been developed in response to a single sentencing decision,” Warner said.
“It is almost always bad policy to make significant changes to sentencing law based on a single case where judicial discretion is thought to have been exercised too leniently. Especially when it has not, or not yet, been reviewed by a court of appeal.”
