The President of the Law Society of Tasmania has today spoken out in support
of the State’s Judges and Magistrates in fulfilling the difficult task of sentencing.
Law Society of Tasmania President, Anthony Mihal, said in light of recent media
reports that were critical of individual sentences, it was important to emphasise
that a court took into account all relevant factors when confronted with the
difficult task of sentencing an offender.
“A recent study using real jurors’ responses demonstrated that 52 per cent of
jurors chose a more lenient sentence than the Judge,” Mr Mihal said.
“That was also the experience when the then Chief Justice Underwood
conducted sentencing workshops with interested members of the public.
“When given a real life scenario with all relevant facts, a majority of participants
imposed a more lenient sentence than the actual sentencing Judge.”
Mr Mihal reiterated the Society’s opposition to mandatory sentencing, such as
that proposed by the Opposition in the case of assaults on emergency services
workers.
“The calls for mandatory minimum sentences ignores the facts as well as the
findings and recommendations of the Sentencing Advisory Council’s report on
the subject,” he said.
“Mandatory sentences do not deter people from committing offences. There is
no evidence that they work. What they will do is cause injustice by failing to take
into account the individual circumstances of an offence and an offender.
“The Courts deserve our support in undertaking a very difficult task. Of course,
an individual Judge or Magistrate will not always get it right. In these cases the
criminal justice system has an appeals process should any sentence be viewed by
the prosecuting authorities as inadequate.”
President, Law Society of Tasmania, Anthony Mihal
