HARSHER penalties are needed for some – but not all – sexual offences in Tasmania, a new report has found. The Sentencing Advisory Council has finalised a three-year study into sanctions given to Tasmanian sex offenders, finding that on some occasions penalties are far too lenient. The council said of most concern were offences against children, especially where the perpetrator was in a position of trust and authority. Also of concern were cases where a young person had been groomed, manipulated or coerced to participate in sexual activity. The council recommended creating a new offence of aggravated sexual intercourse with a young person. It would take into account whether the child was under 12, supplied alcohol or drugs, under the offender’s supervision or care, or if the crime was filmed. The council said ‘‘good character’’ should be removed as a possible mitigating factor. However, it recommended against a blanket increase in sentences for all sex offenders. It also urged against introducing baseline sentences, mandatory penalties or compulsory non-parole periods. ‘‘This approach would result in injustice and would not accord with public expectations,’’ the council said. ‘‘Increasing penalties is unlikely to alter the results of public opinion or victim satisfaction. It may even be counter-productive if it results in fewer pleas or more trials.’’ The council did recommend the government consider guideline judgments, presumptive non-parole periods and a new system of preventative detention and supervision. These sanctions would be based on the ‘‘unacceptable risk’’ posed by offenders upon their release, allowing courts to detain dangerous sexual criminals indefinitely. The council also said the charge ‘‘maintain a sexual relationship with a young person’’ should be changed to ‘‘persistent sexual abuse of a child’’. Council chairman Arie Freiberg said it was clear that change was needed in Tasmanian sentencing practices. ‘‘But that change should be measured, proportionate and appropriate to the Tasmanian criminal justice system,’’ Professor Freiberg said.
HARSHER penalties are needed for some – but not all – sexual offences in Tasmania, a new report has found.
The Sentencing Advisory Council has finalised a three-year study into sanctions given to Tasmanian sex offenders, finding that on some occasions penalties are far too lenient.
The council said of most concern were offences against children, especially where the perpetrator was in a position of trust and authority.
Also of concern were cases where a young person had been groomed, manipulated or coerced to participate in sexual activity.
The council recommended creating a new offence of aggravated sexual intercourse with a young person.
It would take into account whether the child was under 12, supplied alcohol or drugs, under the offender’s supervision or care, or if the crime was filmed.
The council said ‘‘good character’’ should be removed as a possible mitigating factor.
However, it recommended against a blanket increase in sentences for all sex offenders.
It also urged against introducing baseline sentences, mandatory penalties or compulsory non-parole periods.
‘‘This approach would result in injustice and would not accord with public expectations,’’ the council said.
‘‘Increasing penalties is unlikely to alter the results of public opinion or victim satisfaction. It may even be counter-productive if it results in fewer pleas or more trials.’’
The council did recommend the government consider guideline judgments, presumptive non-parole periods and a new system of preventative detention and supervision.
These sanctions would be based on the ‘‘unacceptable risk’’ posed by offenders upon their release, allowing courts to detain dangerous sexual criminals indefinitely.
The council also said the charge ‘‘maintain a sexual relationship with a young person’’ should be changed to ‘‘persistent sexual abuse of a child’’.
Council chairman Arie Freiberg said it was clear that change was needed in Tasmanian sentencing practices.
‘‘But that change should be measured, proportionate and appropriate to the Tasmanian criminal justice system,’’ Professor Freiberg said.
