Login
Lawyers rail against mandatory sentencing for attacks on emergency services
Legal leaders in Victoria have made an urgent call for politicians to respect the independence of the bench, following new laws to introduce mandatory sentencing for offenders who attack emergency workers.
Melissa Coade
The Victorian government’s decision to toughen laws for offenders who attack emergency services staff, by placing it in the same category offence as murder and rape, has been roundly criticised by local lawyers.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
The Victorian Bar and Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) both responded to the announcement on Wednesday, saying that the reform would lead to an “unprincipled race to the bottom” and needlessly took away useful discretionary powers away from judges.
Matt Collins QC, president of the Vic Bar, said that mandatory sentencing for those who attacked emergency services workers would fail to address concerns the community had for people working at the frontline of the sector anyway.
He added that by limiting the discretion judges could exercise would prevent justice from being dispensed based on the unique circumstances of a particular case.
“All Victorians are appalled by attacks on emergency services workers, who have the right to go about their work in a safe environment,” Mr Collins said.
“However, populist, ‘tough on crime’ responses by our politicians are an unprincipled race to the bottom,” he said.
The legislative changes will see attacks on police, paramedics, fire-fighters, or emergency department nurses and doctors made a category one offence.
Mr Collins made a call to all sides of politics to drop the ‘tough on crime’ response, urging the parliament to respect the independence of the bench. Victoria’s judicial officers were best placed to resolve the many competing and subtle factors at play in any given case, he said.
“Mandatory sentencing and reducing judicial discretion deprive our judges and magistrates of the ability to dispense justice in the circumstances of the particular case, bringing their experience and wisdom to the complicated task of balancing punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and fairness,” Mr Collins said.
The LIV, which opposes mandatory sentencing, said it would seek an “urgent meeting” with the Attorney-General. The group’s Criminal Law Executive Committee wanted to discuss with Martin Pakula the need for magistrates and judges to have discretion in sentencing, president Belinda Wilsons said.
LIV was particularly concerned that these new laws would fail to take into account the mental health of offenders. Ms Wilson said that she hoped the “special reasons exception” would be retained in the new laws for those offenders with serious mental health issues.
“Everyone deserves the right to be safe in their work environment, however, Victoria can’t take a ‘one size fits all’ approach around attacks on emergency workers,” Ms Wilson said.
“Every serious assault case will be different. There are often serious mental health issues involved in these vicious assaults on emergency workers.
“These mental health issues must be taken into account in each case,” she said.
Citing a recent $700 million investment by the state government to address mental health issues in the community, Ms Wilson said it made no sense to undermine good initiatives with a “desire to impose mandatory sentences in cases involving people assaulting emergency workers”.
“The LIV believes the government must recognise that there are often mental health issues at the centre of serious attacks on emergency workers and ensure that there is discretion when it comes to dealing with these people in our courts.”
“Victoria’s magistrates and judges must have discretion when it comes to sentencing and have the flexibility to deal with every case on an individual basis,” Ms Wilson said.
