OPINION: Mandatory sentences draw the line MANDATORY sentences must be scrapped from the government's Assaults on Police Officers Bill, the Law Society of Tasmania says. Society president Matthew Verney will brief MLCs on the proposed laws this morning, ahead of debate on the bill later today. The bill includes six-month mandatory prison sentences for people convicted of causing serious bodily harm to police. Under the laws, judges and magistrates would be barred from suspending the sentence. Mr Verney said the state's legal fraternity was steadfastly opposed to minimum sanctions. "Mandatory sentences are not appropriate at any time, in any circumstance or in any law," Mr Verney said. "The sanctions are fraught with the risk of unjust outcomes and deprive the courts of discretion." The government this month stripped mandatory sentences from its anti-protest laws to guarantee their passage through the upper house, but appears unwilling to strike a similar deal for the police assault laws. Police Minister Rene Hidding has maintained the sanctions are entirely appropriate, arguing the laws were overwhelmingly endorsed by voters at the March election. The bill does not cover firefighters or paramedics, but the government is planning to extend it to those emergency service workers in the future. Legislative Councillors are expected to offer up a number of amendments before today's debate. One proposed change is expected to centre on imposing mandatory sentences only on repeat offenders, while another would instruct courts to take into account exceptional circumstances. But Mr Verney said neither would abate his concerns. "Courts consider exceptional circumstances with regard to the offence, not the offender," he said. "The amendment would not guarantee all personal circumstances of individuals prosecuted under the laws are taken into account." He joined the state's peak body for community legal centres in branding the bill unnecessary, saying assaults against police had fallen by a third since 2006.
MANDATORY sentences must be scrapped from the government's Assaults on Police Officers Bill, the Law Society of Tasmania says.
Society president Matthew Verney will brief MLCs on the proposed laws this morning, ahead of debate on the bill later today.
The bill includes six-month mandatory prison sentences for people convicted of causing serious bodily harm to police.
Under the laws, judges and magistrates would be barred from suspending the sentence.
Mr Verney said the state's legal fraternity was steadfastly opposed to minimum sanctions.
"Mandatory sentences are not appropriate at any time, in any circumstance or in any law," Mr Verney said. "The sanctions are fraught with the risk of unjust outcomes and deprive the courts of discretion."
The government this month stripped mandatory sentences from its anti-protest laws to guarantee their passage through the upper house, but appears unwilling to strike a similar deal for the police assault laws.
Police Minister Rene Hidding has maintained the sanctions are entirely appropriate, arguing the laws were overwhelmingly endorsed by voters at the March election.
The bill does not cover firefighters or paramedics, but the government is planning to extend it to those emergency service workers in the future.
Legislative Councillors are expected to offer up a number of amendments before today's debate.
One proposed change is expected to centre on imposing mandatory sentences only on repeat offenders, while another would instruct courts to take into account exceptional circumstances. But Mr Verney said neither would abate his concerns.
"Courts consider exceptional circumstances with regard to the offence, not the offender," he said.
"The amendment would not guarantee all personal circumstances of individuals prosecuted under the laws are taken into account."
He joined the state's peak body for community legal centres in branding the bill unnecessary, saying assaults against police had fallen by a third since 2006.
