The Discussion Paper contains 46 proposals for reform of sentencing laws. These reflect the Commission's tentative conclusions. Submissions and comments are sought on these proposals. In addition, at the end of each chapter there are a series of questions. Some of these questions relate to the proposals, but others raise further issues. The Commission also invites responses to these questions. Set out below is a summary of the proposals.

Proposal 1

Statutory provisions relating to sentencing in New South Wales ought to be consolidated.

Proposal 2

Sentencing legislation should identify the purposes of punishment without attempting to place them in any hierarchy.

Proposal 3

Sentencers should provide reasons justifying any decision to impose a sentence of imprisonment of six months duration or less.

Proposal 4

Section 5(2) and (3) of the Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW) should be repealed.

Proposal 5

There should be a general legislative presumption in favour of concurrent sentences.

Proposal 6

There should be statutory recognition of partly cumulative sentences.

Proposal 7

Section 9(3) of the Sentencing Act 1989 should be amended to allow cumulative sentences to be imposed during the currency of an existing term of imprisonment.

Proposal 8

The provisions dealing with multiple sentences should incorporate the effect of the provisions in s 26B and 34(2) of the Prisons Act 1952 (NSW) and in s 447A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Proposal 9

Sections 13A(9)(a) and (d) of the Sentencing Act 1989 should be repealed.

Proposal 10

Judges should have the discretion to impose a minimum term of imprisonment with an additional term of life at the initial sentencing hearing.

Proposal 11

Section 13A(5) of the Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW) should be redrafted to accommodate the criticisms of it in Purdey.

Proposal 12

Section 13A(8)(a) of the Sentencing Act 1989 should be repealed and s 13A(8)(b) should be amended to allow the Court to direct that the applicant may not re-apply for a period of up to ten years.

Proposal 13

The Habitual Criminals Act 1957 (NSW) and s 115 and 443 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) should be repealed.

Proposal 14

The Community Protection Act 1994 (NSW) should be repealed.

Proposal 15

There should be no distinctions between


· "penal servitude" and "imprisonment";

· "felonies" and "misdemeanours";

· "hard labour" and "light labour"

and the expressions "penal servitude," felonies," "misdemeanours," "hard labour" and "light labour" should no longer be used.




Proposal 16

The Offenders Review Board be renamed the Parole Board.

Proposal 17

Members of the Offenders Review Board should be appointed for a fixed term of three years.

Proposal 18

The Offenders Review Board should provide the offender with a full statement of the reasons on which an order for parole is refused.

Proposal 19

Sections 23 and 41 of the Sentencing Act 1989 should be repealed.

Proposal 20

Administrative review of decisions of the Offenders Review Board should be available in the Administrative Law Division of the Supreme Court.

Proposal 21

The Offenders Review Board should be empowered to defer consideration of parole for up to two years after a refusal to make a parole order or, where a parole order has been revoked, 12 months after return to custody.

Proposal 22

Parole supervision for periods in excess of three years should not be terminated without the consent of the Offenders Review Board.

Proposal 23

Section 25 of the Periodic Detention of Prisoners Act 1981 (NSW) should be amended to make clear that, on application by the Commissioner or detainee, the court has power to cancel the order "if it appears to the court that there is good reason for doing so".

Proposal 24

Stage II of the Periodic Detention scheme should be discontinued.

Proposal 25

Periodic detention should be generally available for periods of less than three months.

Proposal 26

Sentencing legislation should provide for home detention as a sentencing option.

Proposal 27


Community Service Orders should be available as a sentencing option for all offences.

Proposal 28

A breach of a CSO should not itself constitute an offence.

Proposal 29

The term "bond" should replace "recognizance" in legislation.

Proposal 30

In the context of sentencing an offender, a bond for conditional release should be issued only pursuant to a statutory power.

Proposal 31

The maximum period of a bond should be five years.

Proposal 32

Compensation and restitution should not be conditions attaching to a bond.

Proposal 33

Suspended sentences should be reintroduced as a sentencing option in New South Wales.

Proposal 34

In appropriate cases, a charge should be placed on a fine defaulter's property rather than sending the defaulter to prison.

Proposal 35

The current provisions for enforcement of compensation orders with respect to minor offences in s 65 of the Victims Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) should be repealed. The provisions for enforcement in respect of major offences in s 57 of the Victims Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) should be extended to minor offences.

Proposal 36

The Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 (NSW) should be amended to authorise partial forfeiture orders.

Proposal 37

In principle, victim impact statements ought to be generally admissible at sentencing hearings. The purpose of admitting such statements should be to afford a measure of the seriousness of the offence. This purpose should be spelled out in the relevant legislation.

Proposal 38

VIS should only be admissible where they furnish the court with particulars that are not already before the court in evidence or in a pre-sentence report.

Proposal 39

For the purpose of VIS, the "victim" of an offence should be the person against whom the offence was committed or who was a witness to the act of actual or threatened violence and who suffers injury as a result of the offence. Provision should be made for a VIS to be made on behalf of a victim who is under any incapacity.

Proposal 40

The victim should have the option to tender a VIS and the right to request the prosecutor to refrain from presenting the court with details of the injury. The court cannot draw any inference from a failure to provide a VIS.

Proposal 41

VIS ought not to be admissible in homicide cases.

Proposal 42

VIS ought to be signed, or otherwise acknowledged as accurate, by victims before they are received by the sentencing court.

Proposal 43

VIS in sworn written form ought to be tendered by the prosecution at sentencing hearings.

Proposal 44

VIS should address the actual physical, psychological, social and financial consequences of the offence on the victim. They should not address the question of the appropriate sentence which ought to be imposed on the offender.

Proposal 45

The court should have the discretion to rule VIS inadmissible in any case. The author of a VIS should always be subject to cross-examination on its contents.

Proposal 46

Submissions made to the Offenders Review Board addressing the statutory criteria on which a decision to grant parole is based should be sworn, in writing and subject to cross-examination.