Queensland Law Society voiced its opposition to the Penalties and Sentences (Sexual Offences) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 at a public hearing yesterday.
QLS, represented by Legal Policy Solicitor Bridget Cook and Criminal Law Committee Chair Kristy Bell, addressed the State Government’s Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee at Parliament House.
The Bill, which was introduced to Parliament last month, aims to amend the Penalties and Sentencing Act 1992 (Qld) to include recommendations from the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council (QSAC) report Sentencing of Sexual Assault and Rape: The Ripple Effect, released in December last year.
Those include expanding the sentencing purposes to include recognition of harm caused to a victim of an offence; and qualifying the court’s treatment of good character as a mitigating factor in sentencing for sexual offences.
In its submission, the Society said the proposed reforms could diminish the ability of courts to impose sentences that were fair, proportionate and reflected the individual circumstances of each case.
The reforms overlooked the fact that judicial officers already had necessary discretion and guidelines to evaluate character evidence in a measured and context-sensitive way, it said.
Bridget said the Society recognised that sexual offending caused a unique harm.
“We also acknowledge the need for the sentencing process to respond appropriately and we are cognisant of the views of other submitters that the term good character, is, in and of itself, a phrase that carries adverse inferences that are offensive and harmful to victims,” she said.
“We also consider it important that judicial officers be permitted to consider the full range of circumstances in criminal matters, so that individualised justice can be served and the community appropriately protected.”
Bridget said the Society considered that the common law currently provided enough guidance for the court on the appropriate weight, if any, to be given to good character evidence in sentencing.
“We also observe that section 9 of the Act contains provisions that already put limits on the court’s use of good character evidence in cases where an offender seeks to proffer evidence of their good character as a factor to be taken into account in sentencing,” she said.
“In many cases, while good character evidence is accepted by the court, the court does not mitigate the sentence. This is because it cannot unduly overshadow the objective seriousness of the offending.”
Law reform should be guided by recent reviews to ensure it improved victim experiences, Bridget said, pointing to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report Safe, Informed, Supported: Reforming Justice Responses to Sexual Violence, and the New South Wales Sentencing Council’s ongoing review of good character evidence in sentencing, as examples.
Committee Chair and Nicklin MP Martin Hunt inquired about the Society’s recommended changes to the Bill outlined in its written submission, and Kristy responded by saying that the proposed changes stemmed from the fact that section 9 was a complex and long provision.
“At the moment it spans a lot of pages so it is a cumbersome section of the legislation, (and) rather than add to that, the Law Society proposed an alternative approach which was that character evidence or character references not be able to be utilised in mitigation unless they assist the court to come into a view about the matters which they must have regard to under section 9,” she said.
Thuringowa MP Natalie Marr asked about adding community protection to the list of mitigating factors a court should consider.
“The Society’s position in terms of our submission was that if the Bill is to proceed, and those new protections are to be placed on the use of character evidence, that the additional consideration of community protection would broaden judicial discretion in terms of the consideration of relevant information in character references for really an important aim of sentencing,” she said.
“Things like their (the defendant’s) prospects of employment, or their ability to return to work upon release, matters of that nature, would more clearly fit within the community protection factors aspect of the section 9 considerations.”
Macalister MP Melissa McMahon asked about the establishment of an Independent Judicial Commission to help judicial officers and their understanding of sexual offences.
“The QLS is a long-standing advocate for the establishment of a Judicial Commission in Queensland,” Bridget said.
“It’s probably difficult to comment on the scope and the remit of that commission in terms of judicial training, more specifically in relation to sexual violence matters, but it’s definitely something the QLS would love to be consulted on.”
The committee is due to table its report on 11 July, 2025.
Share this article