1999
535
UNSW Law Journal
SUSPENDED SENTENCES AND PREVENTIVE SENTENCES:
ILLUSORY EVILS AND DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENTS
MIRKO BAGARIC
I. INTRODUCTION
A suspended sentence threatens future harm for criminal conduct that has
already occurred. It is a term o f imprisonment, the execution o f which is wholly
or partly suspended. Ostensibly, it is a heavy sanction. Available in most
Australian jurisdictions and in the United Kingdom, it is frequently employed to
punish serious breaches o f the criminal law. For example, in 1996 there were
over five thousand suspended sentences imposed in Victoria alone.*1 During this
period, in the County and Supreme Courts of Victoria (which have jurisdiction
over the most serious criminal offences) the suspended sentence was the second
most commonly imposed sanction, comprising about 30 per cent of all
sanctions.2 On the face o f it, such figures are unremarkable and are unlikely to
prompt consternation, since the popularity o f the suspended sentence among
sentencers is matched by the enthusiasm for them among recipients. It has been
noted that “a defendant who has committed an offence so serious as to merit
imprisonment but who has had that sentence wrongly suspended is obviously
B A L L B (H o n s ) (M o n a s h ), L L M (M o n a sh ). L ectu rer, F a c u lty o f L a w , D e a k in U n iv e r sity .
1
T h ere w e re 3 6 0 s u sp e n d e d s e n te n c e s im p o se d in th e C o u n ty and S u p rem e C ou rts an d 4 7 6 0 in th e
M a g istra tes' C ourts: C a s e flo w A n a ly s is S e c tio n , C ou rts and T ribunal S e r v ic e s D iv is io n , D e p a r tm e n t o f
J u stic e , V ic to r ia ,
Sentencing Statistics: Higher Criminal Courts Victoria,
1 9 9 6 at 1 3 7 ; C a s e flo w
A n a ly s is S e c tio n , C ou rts an d T rib u n al S e r v ic e s D iv is io n , D ep a rtm en t o f J u stic e , V ic to r ia ,
Statistics: Magistrates' Court Victoria,
1 9 9 6 at 2 4 2 .
Sentencing
In total th ere w ere 8 2 4 5 2 m atters fin a lis e d in the
M a g istra tes' C ou rt d u rin g 1 9 9 6 and 1 2 0 5 in th e C o u n ty and S u p rem e C o u rts - all o f the fig u re s are b a se d
o n th e p e n a ltie s im p o se d o n p e r so n s se n te n c e d b a se d on th e p rin cip a l o ff e n c e , as o p p o se d to th e p e n a lty
im p o se d for e a ch o ff e n c e ch arged .
2
M o re p r e c is e ly th e fig u re is 2 9 .8 per c e n t (3 6 0 o f a total o f 1 2 0 5 p e n a ltie s that w e re im p o se d ):
Sentencing Statistics: Higher Criminal Courts Victoria,
n o te 1
supra
at 1 3 7 .
The m o st com m o n
sa n c tio n w a s an im m e d ia te term o f im p riso n m en t. In th e M a g istr a te s ’ C o u rt d u rin g 1 9 9 6 th e su sp e n d e d
se n te n c e w a s th e fifth m o s t fr eq u en tly im p o se d sa n c tio n (b eh in d a fin e , lic e n c e order, b o n d and
c o m m u n ity b a se d order).
T h is eq u ated to 6 per c en t o f th e total s e n te n c e s h a n d ed d o w n :
Statistics: M agistrates’ Court Victoria,
n o te 1
supra
at 2 4 2 .
Sentencing
536
Volume 22(2)
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
more likely to be out celebrating than dashing to the Court o f Appeal”.3 It will
be argued that there is good reason for offenders’ enthusiasm towards suspended
sentences; they do not constitute a recognisable form of punishment at all.
This paper considers the nature of the suspended sentence, particularly the
pragmatic and conceptual difficulties with it. Following an analysis o f the
concept o f punishment, it is contended that the suspended sentence is merely an
illusory unpleasantness and should therefore be abolished as a sentencing option.
Further, recent recommendations to reintroduce suspended sentences as a
sentencing option in New South W ales,45the only jurisdiction in Australia where
it is presently unavailable, should be rejected.
The suspended sentence will then be compared with the preventive (or
protective/ sentence, which, it is argued, is the logical converse of the
suspended sentence. A preventive sentence inflicts immediate harm on an
‘offender’, normally in the form of imprisonment, on account o f threatened
future criminal conduct; while the suspended sentence threatens a future evil (in
the form of restoration o f the term of imprisonment which has been suspended)
for criminal conduct that has already occurred. Suspended and preventive
sentences are also alike in that both violate the principle of proportionality,
which forms another basis on which suspended sentences should be abolished.
Despite this symmetry, suspended sentences are generally widely accepted,
while preventive sentences are almost universally condemned.
II. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF SUSPENDED
SENTENCES
Sanctions in the form of suspended sentences have a long history, their first
use can be traced back to the ecclesiastical courts in the fourteenth century.6
Today, the suspended sentence is available as a sentencing option in the United
Kingdom and all Australian jurisdictions,7 except New South Wales where it
3
JQ C a m p b ell, “A S e n te n c e r ’s L a m en t on th e Im m in en t D ea th o f th e S u sp e n d ed S e n t e n c e ” [1 9 9 5 ]
4
For e x a m p le , s e e N e w S o u th W a le s L a w R e fo r m C o m m is s io n D is c u s s io n P ap er 3 3 ,
Criminal Law Review
2 9 3 at 2 9 4 .
Sentencing,
1 9 9 6 at
3 5 4 -5 .
5
T h e term s p r e v e n tiv e s e n te n c e an d p r o te c tiv e s e n te n c e are u sed in terch a n g ea b ly .
6
For a h isto r y o f su sp e n d e d s e n te n c e s , s e e M A n c e l,
Suspended Sentences,
H e in e m a n n ( 1 9 7 1 ) .
D e sp ite
th e lo n g h isto r y o f su sp e n d e d s e n te n c e s th ere is a r ela tiv e dearth o f literatu re o n th em .
7
T h ere are h o w e v e r v a r ia tio n s r eg a rd in g th e c ir c u m sta n c e s in w h ic h th ey ca n b e im p o se d and th e
c o n s e q u e n c e s o f b rea ch .
In V ic to r ia a term o f im p riso n m en t m a y b e su sp en d e d w h ere th e c o u rt is
s a tis fie d th at it is d e sira b le to d o s o in th e c ir c u m sta n c e s
(Sentencing Act
1 9 9 1 (V ic ) , s 2 7 ( 1 ) ) .
T he
p o w e r to su sp en d s e n te n c e s w h ere d r u n k e n n e ss or a lc o h o l co n trib u ted to th e c o m m is s io n o f th e o ff e n c e
w a s a b o lish e d on 1 S ep tem b e r 1 9 9 7 d u e to th e fr e q u e n c y w ith w h ic h su c h s e n te n c e s w e re b r e a ch ed .
E n g la n d , a term o f im p riso n m en t m a y o n ly b e su sp en d e d in e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m sta n c e s
Criminal Courts Act
1 9 7 3 (U K ), s 2 2 ).
In
(Powers o f
A s to th e m e a n in g o f e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m sta n c e s , se e M W a sik ,
“T h e S u sp e n d ed S e n te n c e ‘E x c e p tio n a l C ir c u m s ta n c e s ’” ( 1 9 9 8 ) 1 6 2
Justice o f the Peace
176.
In
r ela tio n to th e c ir c u m sta n c e s in w h ic h a s u sp en d e d s e n te n c e m a y b e im p o se d in o th er ju r is d ic tio n s , see:
Crimes Act
1 9 1 4 (C th ), s 2 0 (1 )(b ), w h ere th e cou rt h a s th e p o w e r to a tta ch a w id e ra n g e o f c o n d it io n s to
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act
Sentencing Act 1 9 9 7 (T a s), ss 7 , 2 5 ;
th e s u s p e n s io n (s u c h s e n te n c e s are c a lle d r e c o g n isa n c e r elea se orders);
1 9 8 8 (S A ), s 3 8 ;
Penalties and Sentences Act
1 9 9 2 (Q ld ), s 1 44;
1999
537
UNSWLaw Journal
was abolished in 1974.8 Suspended sentences have been subject to the greatest
amount of empirical analysis in Victoria and England, and hence this discussion
will focus largely on their availability and use in these jurisdictions. They were
introduced in Victoria in 1915,9 but were not available in England until 1967.
In these jurisdictions, suspended sentences are regarded as heavy sanctions.
For example, in Victoria they rank fourth in the hierarchy o f gravity of sanctions
behind immediate terms o f imprisonment, combined custody and treatment
orders,10 and intensive corrections orders.11 They are commonly described as a
threat perched like the Sword o f Damocles over the head of offenders during the
period of operation.12 All terms of imprisonment of not more than three years
may be wholly or partly suspended in Victoria,13 and the maximum operational
period of a suspended sentence, the period during which the offender must not
commit another offence, is three years.14 The position is similar in England,
where any sentence o f imprisonment of two years or less may be wholly or partly
suspended for a period of between one and two years.15 The reason that
suspension is allowed only in relation to relatively short sentences of
imprisonment is because it is felt that any sentence beyond this would be for an
offence that is so serious that it would be inappropriate to suspend punishm ent.16
Sentencing Act
1995
(W A ), s 7 6 ;
Sentencing Act
1995
Crimes Act
(N T ), s 4 0 ;
1900
(A C T ),
s 5 5 6 B ( l) ( b ) .
8
S u sp e n d ed s e n te n c e s e x iste d in N e w S o u th W a le s u n til 1 9 7 4
(Crimes Act
1 9 0 0 (N S W ) , ss 5 5 8 - 6 2 ) .
T h ey o n ly a p p lied w h e r e th e o ffen d e r had n o t p r e v io u s ly b e e n c o n v ic te d o f an in d ic ta b le o ff e n c e an d had
n o t p r e v io u s ly b e e n s e n te n c e d to im p riso n m en t. T h e e x e c u tio n o f the s e n te n c e c o u ld o n ly b e su sp en d e d
w h ere th e o ffen d e r en tered a r e c o g n isa n c e to b e o f g o o d b eh a v io u r for n o t le s s th an 12 m o n th s.
S u sp e n d ed s e n te n c e s w e re a b o lish e d f o llo w in g th e r e c o m m en d a tio n o f th e N e w S o u th W a le s C rim in a l
L aw C o m m itte e ,
Report of the Criminal Law Committee on Proposed Amendments to the Criminal Law
and Procedure,
1 9 7 3 at 15. T h e rep ort c o n c lu d e d that th e c o m m o n la w b o n d w a s a su p erio r s e n te n c in g
s a n c tio n in d e a lin g w ith first tim e o ffen d e rs and th at th e su sp en d e d s e n te n c e p r o v is io n s w e re to o
restr ic tiv e reg a rd in g w h e n th e y c o u ld b e a p p lie d and w h a t c o u ld b e d o n e in th e e v e n t o f a b rea ch .
9
Crimes Act
1 9 1 5 (V ic ), s 5 3 2 (s e e
R v Richmond
[1 9 2 0 ] V L R 9;
R v Timms [ 1 9 2 1 ] V L R 5 0 3 , reg a rd in g
Crimes Act 1 9 2 8 ( V ic ) , s 5 3 2 .
th e c ir c u m sta n c e s in w h ic h s u sp en d e d s e n te n c e s c o u ld b e im p o se d );
10
11
12
S u sp e n d ed s e n te n c e s w e re n o t ad o p ted in th e Crimes Act 1 9 5 8 (V ic ), b u t w e re r ein tro d u ced b y th e
Penalties and Sentences Act 1 9 8 5 (V ic ), ss 2 0 -4 .
Sentencing Act 1991 (V ic ), ss 1 8 Q , 5 (4 A ).
Ibid, ss 1 9 ,5 ( 5 ) .
For e x a m p le , s e e R v Locke and Paterson (1 9 7 3 ) 6 S A S R 2 9 8 at 3 0 1 -2 ; R v Edwards ( 1 9 9 3 ) 6 7 A C rim
R 486.
In V ic to r ia , a w h o lly su sp en d e d s e n te n c e is treated as o n e o f im m e d ia te im p riso n m en t fo r all
statu tory p u rp o se s e x c e p t for “d is q u a lific a tio n for, or lo s s o f, o f f ic e or th e fo rfeitu re or s u s p e n s io n o f
p e n s io n s or oth er b e n e fits ”
s 4 0 (5 ) .
{Sentencing Act
b e o n e o f im p riso n m en t for th e w h o le term
13
1991 (V ic ), s 2 7 ( 5 ) ) .
S e e a ls o
Sentencing Act
1 9 9 5 (N T ),
H o w e v er , w h e r e a term o f im p riso n m en t is o n ly partly s u sp en d e d , th e s e n te n c e is c o n s id e r e d to
Act 1 9 9 5 (N T ),
Sentencing Act
{Sentencing Act
199 1 (V ic ), s 2 7 ( 8 ) ) .
S e e a ls o
Sentencing
s 4 0 (8 ) .
1991 (V ic ), s 2 7 (2 A ). In Q u e e n sla n d and th e N orth ern T erritory, th e m a x im u m term th at
m a y b e su sp en d e d is fiv e years
{Penalties and Sentences Act
1 9 9 2 (Q ld ), s 1 4 4 (1 );
Sentencing Act
1995
(N T ), s 4 0 ( 1 ) ) , w h ile in S o u th A u str a lia , T a sm a n ia an d th e A u stra lia C a p ita l T erritory n o s u c h lim it
e x ists.
15
Sentencing Act 1991 (V ic ), s 2 7 ( 2 A ).
Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1 9 7 3 (U K ),
16
For e x a m p le , s e e V ic to r ia n S e n te n c in g C o m m itte e R ep ort,
14
s 2 2 (1 ) . T h e o ffen d e r m u st a ls o b e o v e r th e a g e o f 2 0 .
Sentencing Vol 1,
1 9 8 8 at 3 2 3 .
In V ic to r ia
an d E n g la n d w h ere a su sp en d e d s e n te n c e is im p o se d th e co u rt d o e s n o t h a v e th e p o w e r to im p o se
a d d itio n a l c o n d itio n s .
A s u sp en d e d s e n te n c e m a y b e c o u p le d w ith o th er s a n c tio n s , su c h as a fin e , b u t
th e s e a d d itio n a l sa n c tio n s c a n n o t fo rm a c o n d itio n o f th e s u sp en d e d sen te n c e .
T h u s a fa ilu re to p a y a
538
Volume 22(2)
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
Where a suspended sentence is breached there is a presumption favouring its
restoration.*17 hi the United Kingdom and Victoria, if the offender commits an
imprisonable offence during the period of the suspended sentence the court must
activate the suspended sentence and commit the offender to prison, unless it
would be unjust to do so.18 In Victoria, the presumption is even stronger because
in determining if it would be unjust to activate the term of imprisonment only
e x c e p t io n a l circumstances may be considered.19
On balance, suspended sentences are viewed favourably by courts and
commentators. However, they have come under criticism in two respects. First,
on the basis that the reasoning process leading to their imposition is logically
unsound.
Secondly, that they have been unsuccessful in achieving their
(perceived) aim of reducing prison numbers. Although both these criticisms are
of some merit, I will argue that neither constitutes a decisive attack on suspended
sentences as a sentencing option. I will then discuss what I consider to be a far
more persuasive objection to suspended sentences.
III. C R ITICISM S OF SUSPENDED SENTENCES
A.
The Reasoning Process Underlying Imposition of Suspended Sentences
(i)
C o n c e p tu a l I n c o n g r u i ty U n d e r ly in g th e I m p o s itio n o f S u s p e n d e d S e n te n c e s
A paradoxical aspect of suspended sentences is that, strictly speaking, they
may be imposed only where it is felt that an immediate custodial sanction is
appropriate.20 The court must first reach the conclusion that an immediate term
o f imprisonment is warranted, fix the sentence and only then consider whether to
suspend the sentence.21 The absurdity in such an approach stems from the fact
that an immediate term o f imprisonment is a sanction of last resort; it can only be
imposed if the sentencer is satisfied that the purpose or purposes for which the
fin e w h ic h is im p o se d in a d d itio n to a su sp en d e d s e n te n c e d o e s n o t c o n s titu te a b rea ch o f th e su sp en d e d
s e n te n c e .
T h e o n ly c o n d itio n w h ic h is im p o se d is th at th e o ffen d e r n o t c o m m it an o f f e n c e d u rin g th e
o p era tio n a l p erio d .
(Q ld ), ss 4 , 1 4 4 (1 )).
{Penalties and Sentences Act
T h is is th e sa m e as th e p o s itio n in Q u e e n sla n d
1992
In c o n tra st, in S o u th A u stra lia , T a sm a n ia , th e N o rth ern T erritory, a n d u n d er the
C o m m o n w e a lth le g is la tio n th ere is p o w e r to im p o se oth er c o n d itio n s ( Criminal
1 9 8 8 (S A ), s 3 8 (1 )(b );
Sentencing Act
1 9 9 7 (T a s), ss 7 , 2 5 ;
Sentencing Act
Law (Sentencing) Act
Crimes Act
(N T ), s 4 0 ( 2 ) ;
1 9 1 4 (C th ), s 2 0 (1 )(a )).
17
W h ere, h o w e v e r , a su sp e n d e d s e n te n c e is n o t a c tiv a te d , o th er o p tio n s in clu d e: e x te n d in g th e term o f th e
su sp e n d e d se n te n c e ; a c tiv a tin g o n ly part o f th e term ; an d ta k in g n o a c tio n at all
18
Powers o f Criminal Courts Act 1 9 7 3 (U K ), s 2 3 (1 ) ).
Sentencing Act 1991 (V ic ), s 3 1 (5 A ); Powers o f Criminal Courts Act
19
T h is is in c o n tra st to th e p o s itio n in E n g la n d w h ere th e c o u rt m a y c o n s id e r
{Sentencing Act
1991
(V ic ), s 3 1 (5 );
1 9 7 3 (U K ), s 2 3 ( 1 ) .
all
o f th e c ir c u m sta n c e s .
It
h a s b e e n h eld th at i f th e b r e a c h in g o ffe n c e is m in o r and n o t s er io u s e n o u g h to j u s t if y a term o f
im p riso n m en t in its e lf, th is is a stro n g c o n s id e ra tio n a g a in s t a c tiv a tin g th e s u sp en d e d s e n te n c e
R
[1 9 9 4 ] C rim L R 3 0 3 ).
o r ig in a l o n e d o e s n o t m e a n th at it is u n ju st to a ctiv a te th e term
v
R (1 9 7 0 )
{R v Moylan
[1 9 7 0 ] 1 Q B 1 4 3 ;
21
Saunders
5 4 C r A p p R 2 4 7 ). In V ic to r ia , th e ‘e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s t a n c e s ’ r eq u irem en t h a s n o t y e t b e e n
th e su b je c t o f a u th o r ita tiv e ju d ic ia l in terp retation .
20
{Stacey v
H o w e v er , th e fa c t th at th e b r e a c h in g o ff e n c e is o f a d iffe re n t n a tu re fro m th e
Sentencing Act 1 991 (V ic ), s 2 7 (3 ) ; Powers o f Criminal Courts Act
S e e Trowbridge [ 1 9 7 5 ] C r im L R 2 9 5 .
1 9 7 3 (U K ), s 2 2 (2 ) (a ).
1999
UNSWLaw Journal
539
sentence is imposed cannot be achieved by a sentence that does not involve the
confinement o f the offender.22 If all o f the factors in mitigation have been
considered at the outset and an immediate custodial sentence is imposed, there is
nothing left which can reduce the severity o f the penalty.23 Once sentences
higher up in the sentencing hierarchy than a suspended sentence have been
dismissed as too mild, it is farcical to claim that a suspended sentence is
appropriate, particularly when there are no new variables to tip the scales further
in favour o f a more lenient disposition. It is an affront to both the laws o f
physics and logic to propose that vacuity can produce change.
However, the main purpose in suspending a sentence is to encourage reform
o f the offender,24 and thus the main consideration in determining whether or not
to suspend a sentence is the prospects o f rehabilitation.25 This accords with the
historical aim o f the suspended sentence which is to prevent criminal behaviour,
rather than to match a penalty with the gravity o f the offence.26 In view o f this,
the reasoning process behind suspended sentences can be defended by arguing
that while such sentences are only imposed where it is determined that an
immediate sentence is appropriate, a softening in the sanction can occur where
the offender has particularly good prospects for rehabilitation. However, this is
unsound. Prospects o f rehabilitation are, and should be, factored into the initial
sentencing determination, rather than counted twice.
The confusion that the above approach encourages is illustrated by the
comments o f an English Magistrate, JQ Campbell, who in opposition to the
changes placing stricter limits on the availability o f suspended sentences in the
United Kingdom since October 1992,27 stated that “if I am dealing with a case
where I would have suspended a custodial sentence prior to October 1992 but
now feel prevented from doing so it would be fundamentally unjust to impose an
immediate custodial sentence” .28 This sentiment is clearly erroneous. A
suspended sentence should not have been imposed in the first place if it was
unjust to impose an immediate term.
(ii)
P r a c t i c a l P r o b l e m s S te m m in g F r o m th e R e a s o n in g P r o c e s s U n d e r ly in g
S u s p e n d e d S e n te n c e s
In light o f the incongruity o f the logical reasoning underlying the imposition
o f suspended sentences, it is hardly surprising that certain anomalies or
unanticipated consequences have emerged regarding their use. Empirical studies
reveal that only about half o f suspended sentences imposed appear to represent a
diversion from immediate custodial sentences, while the other half reflect net
widening, that is, imposing a suspended sentence in circumstances where a less
22
23
24
25
26
Sentencing Act
Criminal Justice Act 199 1 (U K ), s s l( 2 ) ( a ) , (b ).
Principles o f Sentencing, H e in e m a n n (2 n d e d , 1 9 7 9 ) p 2 4 4 .
S e e , for e x a m p le , R v Robinson [1 9 7 5 ] V R 8 1 6 at 8 2 8 ; R v Davey ( 1 9 8 0 ) 5 0 F L R 5 7 .
S e e , for e x a m p le , R v Gillan ( 1 9 9 1 ) 5 4 A C rim R 4 7 5 ; Malvaso v R ( 1 9 8 9 ) 1 6 8 C L R
Bartley ( 1 9 8 4 ) 5 7 A L R 1 9 3 .
N o te 6 supra, p 12.
199 1 ( V ic ) , s s 5 (3 ) , (4 );
S ee D A T hom as,
27
T h e se c h a n g e s are d is c u s s e d b e lo w .
28
N o te 3
supra
at 2 9 4 -5 .
227;
Graham v
540
Volume 22(2)
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
severe penalty would otherwise have been imposed.29 Suspended sentences have
also resulted in a trend towards sentence inflation, whereby offenders are given
extra time in light o f the term being suspended. A survey by Tait regarding the
use o f suspended sentences in Victoria during the period 1985-91 showed that
for Victorian magistrates the inflation rate was about 50 per cent.30
In terms o f the main recipients o f suspended sentences, evidence seems to
support the view that they are used largely as a means o f appearing tough on
those who are normally treated leniently anyway: middle-class offenders and
those with a settled life style.31 A survey by Moxon in 1988 o f Crown Courts
disclosed that suspended sentences were common in breach of trust o f cases,
typically involving white collar workers.32 Where they were imposed on those
with a criminal record, this was generally in relation to those who appeared to
have a more settled future.33
The absurdity associated with the reasoning process behind suspended
sentences is not, however, a persuasive reason for their abolishment. For this is
merely a contingent matter which has no bearing on the intrinsic character o f the
suspended sentence as a criminal sanction. For example, a necessary and
sufficient precondition to a suspended sentence could just as easily be that it is
the most appropriate sanction in light o f its ranking in the sentencing hierarchy,
whatever this might be. However, if suspended sentences are to remain a viable
sentencing option the need for transparency and intellectual honesty requires
revision regarding the circumstances in which they may be imposed.
B.
The ‘Success’ of Suspended Sentences
(i)
T h e P o s iti o n in E n g la n d
In England, the suspended sentence was introduced without detailed
consideration of its use in other countries34 as part o f an effort to reduce prison
numbers.35 To this end it appears to have failed:
the accum ulated ev id en ce is n ot encouraging. I f the m ain object o f the suspended
sentence w as to reduce the prison population, there are considerable doubts as to
w hether it ^ |s a ch ieved this effect. It m ay have even increased the size o f the prison
population.36
29
D T ait, “T h e In v is ib le S a n ctio n : S u sp e n d e d S e n te n c e s in V ic to r ia 1 9 8 5 - 1 9 9 1 ” ( 1 9 9 5 ) 2 8 ( 2 )
and New Zealand Journal o f Criminology
Australian
143 at 1 4 9 . D iv e r s io n , d u rin g th e p erio d o f T a it’s s tu d y , w a s
la r g e ly c o n fin e d to o ffen d e rs w ith n o or fe w prior c o n v ic tio n s , w h erea s p e n a lty e sc a la tio n w a s ta rg eted at
th o se w ith an e x te n s iv e c rim in a l record (at 1 5 0 -1 ).
30
For e x a m p le , a s ix m o n th su sp en d e d term w a s see n as e q u iv a le n t to an im m e d ia te term o f a b o u t fo u r
m o n th s:
ibid
at 1 5 3 -4 .
31
See D M oxon ,
32
Ibid,
Sentencing Practices in the Crown Court,
H M S O S tu d y 10 3 ( 1 9 8 8 ) p 3 5 .
p p 3 4 -6 : it w a s n o te d th at 2 9 p er c e n t o f s e n te n c e s for th eft in b rea ch o f trust w ere s u sp e n d e d ,
d e s p ite th e p r in c ip le th at su sp en d e d s e n te n c e s are rarely ap p rop riate in su c h c a se s .
supra
S e e a ls o , n o te 2 9
at 1 5 0 -1 .
supra , p p
33
N o te 31
34
A E B o tto m s , “T h e A d v is o r y C o u n c il and th e S u sp e n d ed S e n te n c e ” [1 9 7 9 ]
3 5 -6 .
35
A d v is o r y C o u n c il o n th e P en a l S y s te m ,
Criminal Law Review 4 3 7 .
Sentences o f Imprisonment: A Review o f Maximum Penalties ,
H M S O (1 9 7 8 ) at [2 6 3 ].
36
R J en k in s, H o m e S ecreta ry , in H C C o m m itte e D e b a te s, S ta n d in g C o m m itte e A (s e s s io n 1 9 6 6 - 6 7 ) V o l II,
c o ls 5 4 4 - 5 , as c ite d in A E B o tto m s, n o te 3 4
supra
at 4 3 8 .
1999
UNSW Law Journal
541
It is su g g e ste d that there w ere three reason s for this failu re. F irst, o n m a n y
o c c a sio n s a c c u se d r e c e iv e d su sp en d ed se n te n c es w h ere p r e v io u sly th ey w o u ld
h a v e r e c e iv e d a n o n -c u sto d ia l order su ch as a fin e. S e c o n d ly , the term o f a
su sp en d ed sen te n c e w a s g en er a lly lo n g er than an im m ed ia te cu sto d ia l sen te n c e
and u p on b reach the term w a s o ften im p lem en ted in fu ll and c o n se c u tiv e ly .
F in a lly , for the n e x t o ffe n c e co m m itted after a su sp en d ed se n te n c e, th e natural
p en a lty w a s a p erio d o f im p riso n m en t.37
O ther re a so n s a d v a n ced for the failu re o f th e su sp en d ed sen te n c e are that:
[It was seen as a] convenient via medium, midway between the custodial and non­
custodial penalties, so that courts previously hesitating between the two and coming
down on the side of non-custodial penalties would now choose the suspended
sentence as an obvious alternative; and secondly, that many [sentencers] did not
share the official Government thinking behind the introduction of the suspended
sentence, and saw it not as an alternative to prison but as an especially effective
Sword of Damocles ^ lic h would deter individual offenders much more surely than
probation or the fine.3
D e sp ite the apparent failu re o f su sp en d ed se n te n c e s to liv e up to e x p e c ta tio n s,
the A d v iso r y C o u n cil on the P en al S y stem on S en ten ce s o f Im p rison m en t in its
report in 1978 p ro p o sed n o ch a n g e in relation to su sp en d ed se n te n c e s.39 It stated
that o n e o f the b e n e fits o f the su sp en d ed sen te n c e w a s that it p ro v id ed courts
w ith a sa n ctio n a llo w in g o ffen d e rs to a v o id actual im p risonm en t; “r o u g h ly three
quarters o f o ffen d e rs g iv e n su sp en d ed se n te n c es are n o t im p riso n ed for the
o ffe n c e for w h ic h the su sp en d ed sen te n c e s w ere g iv e n ” .40 H o w ev e r, as B o tto m s
has p o in te d out, “it is the ultimate im p act on the p riso n p o p u la tio n o f th e w h o le
e ffe c t o f a su sp e n d ed sen te n c e, n o t ju st the apparent im m ed ia te im p act, w h ic h
re a lly m atters for p en a l a n a ly sis” .41
T h e in e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f the su sp en d ed sen te n c e in red u cin g the p riso n
p o p u la tio n is d em on strated b y th e fact that sin c e it w a s a b o lish e d in E n g la n d in
19 8 2 for o ffen d e rs under the age o f 2 1 , there is n o e v id e n c e that th is resu lted in
an in crea se in the n um ber o f im m ed ia te cu sto d ia l sen te n c e s regard in g su ch
o ffe n d e r s.42
T h e d issa tisfa c tio n w ith the su sp en d ed sen te n c e as a p u n itiv e m ea su re in
E n glan d cu lm in a ted w ith m easu res b e in g taken to red u ce its u se. A s a resu lt o f
ch a n g es in trod u ced b y the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (U K ), w h ic h ca m e into
e ffe c t in O ctob er 1 9 9 2 , the u se o f su sp en d ed sen te n c es, in term s o f the o v er a ll
num ber o f p e n a ltie s im p o sed , fe ll from ten per ce n t to o n e p er ce n t for m a le s and
37
38
39
40
41
42
Note 34 supra at 438-9. The breach rate for suspended sentences in England is about one-quarter (A
Ashworth, Sentencing and Criminal Justice, Butterworths (1995) p 286).
Note 34 supra at 444. See also AE Bottoms, The Suspended Sentence After Ten Years: A Review and
Reassessment, University o f Leeds (1979); RF Sparks, “The Use o f Suspended Sentences” [1971]
Criminal Law Review 384.
Note 35 supra at [263].
Ibid at [266].
Note 34 supra at 439.
A Ashworth, note 37 supra, p 286.
542
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
Volume 22(2)
from eig h t p er ce n t to tw o p er cen t for fe m a le s.43 T h is ch a n g e occu rred
p rim arily b e c a u se it b eca m e a requ irem en t that cu sto d ia l sen te n c es w e re to b e
su sp en d ed o n ly in ex c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n ces.44 O b v io u sly , the m e ssa g e that the
su sp en d ed sen te n c e “sh o u ld b e u sed far m ore sp a rin g ly than it h a s b e e n in th e
p a st”,45 w a s clea r ly r e c e iv e d b y the courts.
(ii)
The Experience in Victoria
T h e E n g lish e x p e r ie n c e o f su sp en d ed sen te n c es is in con trast to that in
V icto ria , w h ere the o v era ll im p act o f su sp en d ed se n te n c e s h a s re su lted in a
red u ction in the p rison p o p u la tio n .46 A s I ad verted to earlier, the su sp e n d ed
sen te n c e is a w id e ly u tilise d sa n ctio n in V icto ria . F or ex a m p le, in 1991 it
a cco u n ted for fiv e p er cen t o f all sa n ctio n s im p o sed in the M a g istr a te s’ C ourt
and 2 0 per cen t o f sa n ctio n s im p o se d b y the C ou n ty and Sup rem e C ourt (th e
H ig h er C ou rts) 47 B y 199 6 th is had grow n to about six p er ce n t and 3 0 p er cen t
r e sp e c tiv e ly .48
In V ic to r ia the b reach rate for su sp en d ed sen te n c es in 1 9 9 0 w a s 18 p er cen t,
w h ic h w a s le s s than h a lf the rate in E nglan d . T h e a ctiv a tio n rate for th o se
b rea ch in g su sp e n d ed se n te n c e s w a s a lso sig n ific a n tly le s s in V icto ria than in
E ngland: 5 4 p er cen t, com p ared to ab out 80 per ce n t.49 T h e d iffe r e n c e in th e
b reach rates can b e e x p la in e d o n the b a sis that the len g th o f the op era tio n a l
p eriod o f su sp en d ed se n te n c e s in E n glan d w a s up to three years as o p p o se d to
o n e year in V ic to r ia .50
A c c o r d in g ly , to th e ex ten t that their o b je c tiv e is to red u ce p riso n n um bers,
su sp en d ed se n te n c e s h a v e su c c e e d e d in V ictoria . In lig h t o f th is, T a it c o n c lu d e s
that:
[Suspended sentences] are still something of a mystery. They threaten future pain to
ensure present compliance. They depend for their success on the avoidance of
certain behaviours rather than the performance of activities. They appear to be
inconsistent with other forms of penalty which extract money, work, reporting
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Ibid , pp 10 and 287. These changes have not been universally welcomed. Some feel that they have lost a
vehicle which allows them to signify the seriousness o f offences, while showing mercy in particular cases
(see note 3 supra and also M Wasik, note 7 supra).
Powers o f Criminal Courts Act 1991 (UK), s 22(2)(b), as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1991
(UK), s 5 (1). This has been interpreted very strictly. Circumstances which are normally considered
mitigatory such as good character, remorse and a plea o f guilty are not exceptional ( Okinikan v R (1992)
14 Cr App R (S) 453). A similar view was endorsed in R v Robinson (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 559.
However, it has been held that depression could amount to exceptional circumstances (R v French [1993]
Crim L R 893, but c f R v Bradley [1994] Crim L R 381); as could the need to rehabilitate an offender
with a family (R v Cameron [1993] Crim L R 721); and as could terminal illness (see note 3 supra). See
also M Wasik, note 7 supra.
Lowery v R (1993) Cr App R (S) 485.
Note 29 supra at 157-9.
Ibid at 149. The significantly greater proportion o f suspended sentences imposed by the higher courts
follows from the fact that about 70 per cent o f all sentences passed in these courts involve a gaol term,
compared to approximately only 10 per cent o f the sentences passed in the Magistrates’ Court.
See notes 1 and 2 supra.
See note 29 supra at 155.
This was extended to two years in April 1991 and three years in September 1997 (Sentencing Act 1991
(Vic), s 27(2)).
1999
UNSW Law Journal
543
behaviour or loss of liberty. In a system which prides itself on proportionality and
consistency, it is hard to make a case f<^ an invisible, intangible, but frequently
irresistible sanction. Except that it works.
(iii)
E va lu a tin g S u sp en d ed S en ten ces by R eferen ce to R edu ction in P rison
N u m bers
H o w ev e r, T a it’s argum ent is fla w ed . S en ten cin g o p tio n s ca n n o t b e ev a lu a ted
on the b a sis o f th eir im p act on the freq u en cy w ith w h ic h other se n te n c in g
o p tio n s are u sed . O th erw ise it co u ld b e argued that m an d atory p riso n se n te n c e s
for road traffic o ffe n c e s are d esirab le b eca u se th ey w o u ld red u ce th e am ou n t o f
fin e s issu e d . M ore particu larly, the e ffe c t on the p rison p o p u la tio n is n o t a
w e ig h ty , far le s s th e so le , co n sid era tio n b y w h ic h the s u c c e ss o f a crim inal
sa n ction m a y b e a sse sse d . I f k e e p in g p e o p le ou t o f ja il is the m ea su re o f
s u c c e ss, a b so lu te v ic to r y co u ld b e a c h ie v e d b y m e rely o p en in g the p riso n gates.
L e ss d rastically, p riso n s w o u ld b e a lm o st to ta lly em p tied b y co n v er tin g ev e ry
p riso n term o f le s s than tw e lv e m on th s au to m a tica lly into another sa n ctio n su ch
as p rob ation or a fin e. B ut, as sh o u ld b e apparent b y n o w , su ch su g g e stio n s
to ta lly m iss the p oin t. In d eed in m an y circu m sta n ces it m a y b e that k e e p in g
p e o p le ou t o f p riso n is u n d esirab le.
T h e cru cial, and in d ee d o n ly , q u estio n in relation to the e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f
sen te n c in g o p tio n s is w h eth er th ey fu lfil the o b je c tiv e s o f a p ro p erly c o n sid e red
and co h eren t sy ste m o f p u n ish m en t. Im p rison m en t is n o t an o b je c tiv e , b ut rather
a m ean s, o f p u n ish m en t. U n fo rtu n a tely , a m ea n in g fu l a n a ly sis o f the ex ten t to
w h ic h th e su sp en d ed sen te n c e p ro m o tes the o b je c tiv e s o f p u n ish m en t is n o t
p o ssib le , g iv e n that a prim ary sen te n c in g ration ale h as n o t b een a d o p ted b y an y
se n te n c in g sy ste m in A u stralia or the U n ited K in g d o m . T h is is in k e e p in g w ith a
w o r ld w id e p h en om en on : the sen te n c in g c o d e s o f m o st co u n tries do n o t e x p r e ssly
adopt a particular th eory o f p u n ish m en t,5152 and w h ere sen te n c in g o b je c tiv e s are
d ecla red th ey are o ften in c o n siste n t.53 G o o d ex a m p les are the S en tencing A ct
1991 (V ic ) and the C rim in al J u stice A c t 1991 (U K ).
T h e S en ten cin g A c t 1991 ( V ic ) 54 e x p r e ssly ad opts the utilitarian b a sed g o a ls
o f d eterren ce, reh ab ilitation and in cap acitatio n o n the o n e hand, w h ile
sim u lta n e o u sly p ro m o tin g (ap p aren tly in c o n siste n t) retrib utive o b je c tiv e s su ch as
d en u n cia tio n and ju s t d eserts, and th en p ro v id e s that th ese fiv e p u r p o se s are
e x h a u stiv e o f the p u r p o se s for w h ic h se n te n c e s m a y b e im p o sed . H o w e v e r , b y
fa ilin g to p rio ritise the r e sp e c tiv e im p ortan ce o f th ese o b je c tiv e s it se e m s that
th ey w ere a d op ted in b lis s fu l ign oran ce o f any in c o n siste n c y or te n sio n b e tw e e n
them . T h e C rim in al J u stice A c t 1991 (U K ) fares n o better. T h e W h ite P aper
u p on w h ic h the A c t is b a sed clea rly su pp orted a retrib utive th eo ry o f
51
52
53
54
See note 29 supra at 159.
Note, though, that until relatively recently, the West German Code adopted a primarily retributive
approach and the sentencing system in the former Yugoslavia was essentially utilitarian: see N Walker,
Why Punish?, Oxford University Press (1991) p 8.
RG Fox and A Frieberg, Sentencing State and Federal Offences, Oxford University Press (1986) p 444
notes that at various times retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, incapacitation, education
and community protection have all been advanced as the sole or main purpose o f criminal sentencing.
Section 5(1).
544
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
Volume 22(2)
pun ishm en t: “the first o b je c tiv e o f all sen te n c in g is d en u n cia tio n and retrib ution
for the c r im e ”.55 In lig h t o f th is it has b e e n su g g ested that the A c t g iv e s d esert
and p ro p o rtio n a lity a prim ary r o le ,56 y et n o w h ere in the A c t is th is m ad e e x p re ss
and in fact the A c t states n o th in g about the ra tio n a les for sen te n c in g . In d eed the
o n ly co n sid e ra tio n w h ic h in certain circu m sta n ces can trum p all oth ers is
in cap acitation , w h ic h is clea rly a utilitarian g o a l.57
T h e u n p rin cip led nature o f sen te n c in g p ra ctice h a s led to w h a t A n d rew
A sh w o rth la b e ls a ‘ca feteria s y s te m ’ o f sen te n c in g , w h ereb y sen ten cers m a y p ic k
and c h o s e a ration ale w h ic h se e m s appropriate at the tim e w ith little con strain t.
T h is is m ad e s ig n ific a n tly e a sier b y the large n um ber o f d iscrete fa cto rs that the
cou rts h a v e id e n tifie d as b e in g relevan t to sen ten cin g . T w o separate stu d ies
about tw e n ty years a g o d eterm in ed that there w ere b e tw e e n 2 0 0 and 3 0 0 su ch
fa cto rs.58
In an y ev en t, the failu re o f leg isla tu res to d e v e lo p a prim ary ra tio n a le for
sen te n c in g is n o t sig n ific a n t for the p u rp o ses o f this d isc u ssio n , sin c e as is
d isc u sse d b e lo w su sp en d ed se n te n c e s fail at the first hurdle: th ey d o n o t
co n stitu te a form o f p u n ish m en t.
C.
W hether Suspended Sentences Constitute Punishment
D e sp ite the o ste n sib le sev e rity o f su sp en d ed sen te n c es, there h a v e b e e n so m e
re serv a tio n s e x p r e sse d about their p u n itiv e im pact. In R v King, L ord Parker
stated that “in m an y c a se s [w h ere a su sp en d ed sen te n c e is im p o sed ] it is q u ite a
g o o d th in g to im p o se a fin e, w h ic h adds a stin g to w h a t m ig h t o th er w ise b e
th ou gh t b y the p rison er to b e a l e t - o f f ’.59 E v en reports g en er a lly su p p o rtiv e o f
su sp e n d ed se n te n c e s as a sen te n c in g o p tion h a v e a c k n o w led g ed that “e x c e s s iv e
m itig a tio n [is] in h eren t”60 in them . T h e 1 9 9 0 H o m e O ffic e W h ite P aper n o ted
that:
Many offenders see a suspended sentence as being a ‘let off since it places no
restrictions other than the obligation not to offend again. If they complete the
sentence satisfactorily, all they have felt is the denunciation of the conviction and
55
56
57
58
59
60
Great Britain Home Office, White Paper: Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, HMSO (1990) at 2
(White Paper).
A Ashworth, note 37 supra, p 81. The White Paper, upon which the 1991 Act is based, declared that
proportionality was the primary consideration (ch 1 and 2), see ibid.
Section 1 makes it clear that the only reason for going beyond a proportionate sentence is where this is
necessary to protect the public. There is also room for rehabilitation to serve as a mitigating factor: ss
4(1), 6, 8 ,2 8 (1 ).
J Shapland, Between Conviction and Sentence, Routledge & Kegan Paul (1981) p 55 identifies 229
factors, while R Douglas, Guilty, Your Worship, LaTrobe University (1982), a study o f Victorian
Magistrates’ Courts, identified 292 relevant sentencing factors. The results o f such studies were noted in
Pavlic v R (1995) 5 Tas R 186 at 202 where it was stated that “it is impossible to allocate to each
relevant factor a mathematical value, and from that, extrapolate a sum which determines the appropriate
penalty”.
[1970] 1 WLR 1016. The Advisory Council on the Penal System also thought that this would be
desirable: note 35 supra at [288].
Note 35 supra at [268].
1999
UNSW Law Journal
545
sentence^ any subsequent publicity and, of course, the impact of acquiring a criminal
record.
A g a in st th is, the su sp en d ed se n te n c e h as b een d escrib ed as a sig n ific a n t
p u n ish m en t,6162w h ic h carries a serio u s stig m a .63 Further, su sp en d ed sen te n c e s
h a v e b e e n d efe n d ed on the b a sis that the m o st e ffe c tiv e w a y to p rev en t crim inal
b eh a v io u r is b y internal restraints stem m in g from ed u ca tio n and s o c ia lisa tio n and
that a threat o f p u n ish m en t is “ju st as ‘r e a l’ as any o f the oth er fears,
ex p ec ta tio n s, o b lig a tio n s, and d u ties w h ic h p op u la te the so c ia l w o rld , ... and th is
threat is m ore in d iv id u a lised and im m ed iate w h en a cou rt im p o se s su ch a
se n te n c e ” .64 It h as a lso b e e n su g g e ste d that the su sp en d ed se n te n c e m a y b e
c o n c e iv e d as p u n ish m en t sin c e it “is n o t so m eth in g w h ic h the o ffen d e r w e lc o m e s
in i t s e l f ’.65
T o g et to the b o tto m o f w h eth er a su sp en d ed sen te n c e co n stitu te s a form a
p u n ish m en t it is n e c e ssa r y to first in v e stig a te the e sse n tia l nature o f p u n ish m en t
and th en to break d o w n the su sp en d ed sen te n c e into its co n stitu en t parts to
a scertain h o w it squares w ith the c o n c e p t o f p un ishm en t.
(i)
The N a tu re o f P unishm ent
A n en orm ou s n um ber o f d efin itio n s o f p u n ish m en t h a v e b e e n a d v a n ced o v er
the a g es. M a n y in corp orate so m e w h a t con troversia l a sp ects into the d e fin itio n ,
for e x a m p le, b y c o n fin in g p u n ish m en t to the g u ilty .6 T h u s, H erbert M orris
d e fin e s p u n ish m en t as “the im p o sitio n u p on a p erso n w h o is b e lie v e d to b e at
fau lt o f so m e th in g co m m o n ly b e lie v e d to b e a d ep rivation w h ere that d ep riv a tio n
is ju s tifie d b y the p e r so n ’s g u ilty b eh a v io u r” .67 D u f f d e fin e s p u n ish m en t as “the
in flic tio n o f su ffer in g on a m em b er o f the co m m u n ity w h o h as b rok en its
la w s ” ;68 and sim ila rly M cT aggart d e fin e s p u n ish m en t as “the in flic tio n o f p ain
on a p erso n b e c a u se h e h as d on e w r o n g ” .69
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Note 55 supra at [3.20]-[3.21].
For example, s z e R v H (1993) 66 A Crim R 505 at 510; Elliott v Harris (No 2) (1976) 13 SASR 516 at
527; Patterson v Stevens (1992) 57 SASR 213 at 217; R v Voegeler (1988) 36 A Crim R 174.
R v Gillian (1991) 54 A Crim R 475 at 480.
Note 29 supra at 146. See also AE Bottoms, “The Suspended Sentence in England 1967-1981” (1981)
21 British Journal o f Criminology 1.
C L Ten, Crime, Guilt and Punishment, Clarendon Press (1987) p 2.
Ostensibly, confining punishment to the guilty might appear to be uncontroversial. However, one o f the
strongest objections which has been levelled against a utilitarian theory o f punishment is that in some
circumstances the utilitarian is indeed required to punish the innocent: see HJ McCloskey, Meta-Ethics
and Normative Ethics, Martinus (1969) pp 180-1. As far as punishing the innocent is concerned, the
correct position would appear to be that advanced by Walker, who provides that while punishment
generally requires that the offender has voluntarily committed the relevant act, it is sufficient that the
punisher believes or pretends to believe that he or she has done so: note 52 supra, p 2.
H Morris, “Persons and Punishment” in SE Grupp (ed), Theories o f Punishment, Indiana University
Press (1971) 76 at 83.
RA Duff, Trials and Punishments, Cambridge University Press (1985) p 267. See also p 151 where Duff
states that punishment is suffering inflicted on an offender for an offence by a duly constituted authority.
JME McTaggart, Studies in Hegelian Cosmology, Cambridge (1901) p 129.
546
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
Volume 22(2)
O ther d e fin itio n s in c lu d e the purported requ irem en t that p u n ish m en t m u st b e
in flic te d b y an appropriate au th ority.7071 F or ex a m p le, H o b b e s p ro v id e s that
a punishment is evill inflicted by ublique Authority, on him that hath done, or
omitted that which is judged by the same Authority to be a transgression of the law;
to the end that the will of men may thereby the better be disposed to obedience...
The aym of punishment is not revenge, but terrour.
H o n d erich d e fin e s p u n ish m en t as “an a u th o rity ’s infliction o f a p e n a lty ,
so m e th in g in v o lv in g d ep rivation or d istress, on an offender, so m e o n e fou n d to
h a v e b roken a ru le, for an o ffe n c e , an act o f the kin d p ro h ib ited b y the ru le” .72
A n d in the p o stscrip t to the sam e b o o k , w ritten o v er a d eca d e later, as “that
p ra ctice w h er eb y a s o c ia l a u th o rity v isits p en a lties on o ffen d ers, o n e o f its
d elib erate aim s b e in g to d o s o ” .73
F or the p u rp o ses o f the p resen t d isc u ssio n it is n o t n ece ssa ry to r e so lv e
tim e le ss d isp u tes ab out m atters su ch as b y w h o m p u n ish m en t m u st b e im p o se d
and w h eth er or n o t p u n ish m en t is co n fin e d to the g u ilty . For p resen t p u rp o ses,
w h a t is te llin g is that an in d isp en sa b le feature o f any ten a b le d e fin itio n o f
p u n ish m en t is that it m u st co n stitu te so m e in c o n v e n ie n c e to the offen d er.
T h u s B en th a m sim p ly d eclared that “all p u n ish m en t is m isc h ie f, all
p u n ish m en t is it s e lf e v il” .74 T en states that p u n ish m en t “in v o lv e s the in flic tio n
o f so m e u n p lea sa n tn ess on the o ffen d er or it d ep riv es the o ffen d er o f so m e th in g
v a lu e d ”.75 O thers h a v e p la c e d so m e w h a t e m o tiv e em p h a sis on the hurt that
p u n ish m en t se e k s to secu re. P u n ish m en t h a s b een d escrib ed as sim p ly p ain
d e liv e r y ,76 and sim ila rly it h as b e e n a sserted that “the in trin sic p o in t o f
p u n ish m en t is that it sh o u ld hurt - that it sh o u ld in flic t su fferin g , hardship or
b u rd en s” .77 W a lk er is so m e w h a t m ore e x p a n siv e regard in g the ty p e o f e v ils
w h ic h can co n stitu te p u n ishm en t: h e d escr ib es p u n ish m en t as
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Walker takes the view that punishment can be ordered by anyone who is regarded as having the right to
do so, such as certain members o f a society or family, not merely a formal legal authority, and that
punishment stems not only from violation o f legal rules, but extends to infringements o f social rules or
customs: note 52 supra , p 2. This would seem to accord with general notions regarding punishment, and
indeed there would appear to be many parallels between, for example, family discipline and legal
punishment: see also note 67 supra. As Walker points out, punishment need not be by the state: it has
different names depending on the forum in which it is imposed. “When imposed by the Englishspeaking courts it is called ‘sentencing’. In the Christian Church it is ‘penance’. In schools, colleges,
professional organisations, clubs, trade unions, and armed forces its name is ‘disciplining’ or
‘penalizing’” : note 52 supra , p 1. For all this I shall not get weighed down on the identity o f the
punisher. This discussion is concerned with the social institution o f punishment as authorised by the
state and for the purposes o f this paper I will assume that punishment is imposed by a person in legal
authority.
T Hobbes, Leviathan , Washington Square Press (1969) ch xxviii, emphasis added.
T Honderich, Punishment: The Supposed Justifications, Penguin Books (1984) p 15, emphasis added.
This definition is shortened at p 19 to include only the words in italics.
Ibid , p 208.
J Bentham, Principles o f Morals and Legislation (1789) ch 13.2.
Note 65 supra , p 2.
N Christie, Limits to Pain , Martin Robertson (1981).
RA Duff, “Punishment, Citizenship & Responsibility” in H Tam (ed), Punishment, Excuses and Moral
Development, Avery Aldershot (1996) 1 at 2.
1999
UNSW Law Journal
547
the infliction of something which is assumed to be unwelcome to the recipient: the
inconvenience of a disqualification, the hardship of incarceration, the suffering of a
flogging, exclusion from the country or community, or in extreme cases death.
F in a lly , v o n H irsch states that “p u n ish in g so m e o n e c o n sists o f d o in g so m e th in g
p ain fu l or u n p leasan t to him , b e c a u se h e has purported ly co m m itted a w ro n g ,
under circu m sta n ces and in a m anner that c o n v e y s d isap p rob ation o f the o ffen d e r
for h is w r o n g ” .7879
T h e re q u isite in c o n v e n ie n c e flo w in g from p u n ish m en t h as b een d escr ib ed in
n u m erou s w a y s, in c lu d in g e v il, pain , su fferin g, or hurt. L in g u istic crea tiv ity
a sid e, the im portant p o in t to em erg e is that d esp ite co n tin u in g u n r eso lv ed issu e s
about the nature o f p u n ish m en t, o n e settled feature is that p u n ish m en t in v o lv e s
an u n p lea sa n tn ess im p o sed o n the o ffe n d e r .80
T h is in co n tro v ertib le and
s e e m in g ly in n o cu o u s truth is fatal to the con tin u a tio n o f the su sp en d ed sen te n c e
as a sen te n c in g op tion .
(ii)
The Components o f the Suspended Sentence
T h e su sp en d ed sen te n c e has tw o co m p o n en ts.
T h e first is th e term o f
im p rison m en t w h ic h is im p osed .
C learly, it can n ot b e argued that th is
co n stitu tes a form o f u n p lea sa n tn ess sin c e b y the v ery nature o f the sa n ctio n it is
su sp en d ed p r e c ise ly in order to a v o id its e ffe c tiv e op eration . T h e other a sp ect o f
the su sp en d ed sen te n c e is the p o s s ib ility that the p erio d o f im p riso n m en t m a y b e
a ctiv ated i f a c o n d itio n related to the sen ten ce, n a m ely that the o ffen d e r n o t re­
o ffen d , is b reach ed d uring its o p era tio n .81 A n d it is th is feature o f the su sp en d ed
sen te n c e w h ic h su p p o se d ly carries the stin g.
A c c o r d in g ly , a lth o u g h the
su sp en d ed sen te n c e co n ta in s n o tan gib le inh eren t u n p lea sa n tn ess, a real
u n p lea sa n tn ess is im p o se d sin c e the p e o p le u n d erg o in g it fa c e the risk o f
a ctiv a tio n in the ev e n t o f a breach.
H o w ev e r, it is erron eou s to d escrib e su ch a risk as b e in g ca p a b le o f
co m p r isin g a p u n itiv e m easure. E very p erson in the co m m u n ity fa c es the risk o f
im p rison m en t i f th ey co m m it an o ffe n c e w h ic h is p u n ish a b le b y im p riso n m en t.82
In th is w a y the natural and p erv a siv e op eration o f the crim inal la w ca sts a
p erm anent S w ord o f D a m o c le s o ver all our heads: ea c h a ctio n w e p erfo rm is
su b ject to th e crim in al law . D e sp ite th is it h as n ev er b e e n se r io u sly a sserted that
w e are all u n d erg o in g so m e typ e o f crim inal p u n ish m en t. It fo llo w s lo g ic a lly
that the risk o f im p rison m en t in the e v e n t o f a future c o m m issio n o f a crim inal
78
79
80
81
82
Note 52 supra, p 1.
A von Hirsch, Past or Future Crimes, Manchester University Press (1986) p 35. See also Ten who states
that punishment is not merely the imposition o f unpleasantness on the offender: “the imposition is made
to express disapproval or condemnation o f the offender’s conduct which is a breach o f what is regarded
as a desirable and obligatory standard o f conduct” (note 65 supra, p 2).
For the sake o f completeness, in my view punishment is an unpleasantness; the taking away o f something
o f value for a wrong actually or perceived to have been committed: see M Bagaric, “The Disunity of
Sentencing and Confiscation” (1997) 21(4) Criminal Law Journal 191 at 197.
The fact that a conviction also must normally be recorded when a suspended sentence is imposed is not
an integral part o f the suspended sentence. This association is merely contingent; there is nothing to
prevent a sentencing system making a conviction optional where a suspended sentence is imposed.
Which are the only type o f offences for which a suspended sentence may be restored: Sentencing Act
1991 (Vic), s 31(1); Powers o f Criminal Courts Act 1973 (UK), s 23(1).
548
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
Volume 22(2)
o ffe n c e is n o t a crim inal san ction ; it is a n u llity in term s o f p u n itiv e e ffe c t. T h e
situ ation is o b v io u s ly so m e w h a t m ore p recarious for th o se u n d erg o in g su sp en d ed
sen ten ces: in ad d ition to the risk fa c ed b y all o f us o f im p riso n m en t i f w e co m m it
a crim in al o ffe n c e , th ey h a v e the m ore sp e c ific risk that c o m m issio n o f an
o ffe n c e m a y a lso resu lt in th em b e in g im p riso n ed b y virtu e o f restoration o f the
se n te n c e w h ic h is su sp en d ed . B u t th is ad dition al risk is o f p r e c ise ly the sam e
nature83 (th e p o s s ib ility o f im p rison m en t in the ev en t o f co m m ittin g an o ffe n c e )
as that b orn e b y all m em b ers o f the com m u n ity . It is irrelevan t that for th o se
u n d erg o in g su sp en d ed se n te n c e s the lik e ly le v e l o f u n p lea sa n tn ess is greater
sh o u ld th e risk eventuate; the d iffer en ce is o n e o f d eg ree, n o t nature. It is
im portant to n o te that th is c o n c lu sio n fo llo w s n o t from a ‘m e r e ’ v a lu e
ju d g em e n t, b ut is rather an irresistib le m ath em atical truth: tw o tim es zero is still
zero.
T h e illu so r y p u n itiv e nature o f the su sp en d ed sen te n c e is em p h a sised , in that
n o t o n ly o ffen d e rs w h o b reach su sp en d ed sen te n c es r e c e iv e a greater p en a lty
than is w arranted b y the im m ed iate o ffe n c e . O ffen d ers w ith prior c o n v ic tio n s
are a lso ty p ic a lly d ealt w ith m ore h arsh ly than th o se w ith o u t a crim in al record.
T h o u g h o ffen d e rs are n o t p u n ish e d again for their p rev io u s cr im e s,84 the earlier
o ffe n d in g m ay d ise n title th em from le n ie n c y b y n o t a llo w in g a red u ctio n in
sen te n c e for g o o d ch aracter.85 D e sp ite th is it can n ot b e co n te n d ed that o ffen d e rs
w h o h ave ‘serv ed th eir tim e ’ are still u n d ergoin g p u n ish m en t.
T h u s the true p ictu re se e m s to b e that the su sp en d ed sen te n c e su ffers from the
fu n dam en tal fla w that it d o e s n o t co n stitu te a d iscern ib le u n p lea sa n tn ess. R ather
it m e rely s ig n ifie s a p o s s ib le future u n p leasan tn ess: i f there is n o b reach, there is
n o e v il.86 M o reo v er, g iv e n that a v o id a n ce o f the u n p lea sa n tn ess for th o se
u n d erg o in g su sp en d ed sen te n c e s is to ta lly w ith in their co n tro l, during th e p erio d
o f ‘s e n te n c e ’ th ey are in the id e n tica l p o sitio n as the rest o f the co m m u n ity , in so
far as b e in g su b ject to crim in al sa n ctio n s is co n cern ed . T h e eq u a tio n is the
sam e: o ffe n d and risk ja il; ab id e b y the la w and su ffer n o u n p lea sa n tn ess.
(iii) Community Attitudes Regarding Suspended Sentences
S u rv ey s regard in g co m m u n ity attitudes ab out the ranking o f p e n a ltie s h a v e
sh o w n that fe w are d e c e iv e d b y the su p erficia l p u n itiv e v e n ee r o f the su sp e n d ed
sen te n c e.
A su rv ey co n d u c ted in P h ila d elp h ia and P en n sy lv a n ia a sk ed
resp on d en ts (c o n sistin g o f a group o f p o lic e o ffic e r s, a group o f in m a tes, a group
o f p rob ation o ffic e r s and an undergraduate cr im in o lo g y c la ss) to rank 3 6
83
84
85
86
The individualised nature o f the risk o f imprisonment which stems from a suspended sentence, as
opposed to the risk o f imprisonment faced by the community generally which follows from laws with
universal application is also irrelevant. This is evident from the fact that criminal laws applying to only a
relatively small section o f the community (such as workplace safety laws which apply only to employers,
or laws which apply only to lawyers, police, estate agents and the like) are not considered by their nature
to be more severe.
For example, see R v Ottewell [1970] AC 642 at 650.
For example, see Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 487-9. See also note 23 supra , p
197.
In fact, as we have seen, even where there is a breach it is not mandatory that the term be restored.
1999
UNSW Law Journal
549
d ifferen t p e n a ltie s, ran gin g from d eath to a $ 1 0 fin e in order o f se v e r ity .87 T h e se
p e n a lties in c lu d ed su sp en d ed se n te n c e s o f three years, 12 m o n th s and six
m o n th s.88 T h e m ean rank orders for th ese from the four g ro u p s89 w e re 2 7 , 3 0
and 3 2 r e sp e c tiv e ly . A ll o f the su sp en d ed se n te n c e s ranked in order o f sev e rity
b e lo w a fin e o f $ 5 0 0 90 and a b o v e a fin e o f $ 2 5 0 .91 It w a s co n c lu d e d that “a
su sp en d ed sen te n c e in v o lv in g th e p rosp ect o f a possible p rison se n te n c e for a
s p e c ifie d term is le s s b u rd en som e than the immediate in c o n v e n ie n c e o f
prob ation su p e rv isio n or a fin a n cia l p en a lty ” .92
In E n glan d , a su rv ey r e v ea led that m em b ers o f the p u b lic v ie w e d the
su sp en d ed sen te n c e as the lea st p u n itiv e sa n ctio n o f se v e n co m m o n p en a lties.
T h e su sp en d ed sen te n c e w a s c o n sid e red m ore len ien t than p rob ation and e v e n
so fter than a sm all fin e .93 S u ch a v ie w appears to b e w id esp rea d . A su rv ey o f
la y ju s tic e s fou n d that su sp en d ed se n te n c e s o f s ix m on th s w ere regard ed as m ore
len ien t than p rob ation o f tw o years and b oth o f th ese sa n ctio n s w ere b e lo w a o n e
hundred p ou n d fin e .94 T h e c o n c lu sio n to b e draw n is that su sp en d ed se n te n c e s
are regard ed as m ore len ie n t than a lm o st any sen te n c e o f p erem p tory
p u n ish m en t, and “a lth ou gh ap paren tly sec o n d o n ly to im m ed ia te im p riso n m en t
o n the sen te n c in g hierarchy, [the su sp en d ed sen te n c e] is treated in p ra ctice as an
o p tio n m u ch lo w e r d o w n the ladd er” .95
T h e in a d eq u a cy o f su sp en d ed sen te n c es as a p u n itiv e m ea su re is further
illu strated b y com p arin g th em w ith their con v erse: p ro te ctiv e (or p rev e n tiv e )
sen te n c es.
87
See L Sebba and G Nathan, “Further Explorations in the Scaling o f Penalties” (1984) 24 British Journal
o f Criminology 221 at 229. The most severe sanction was rated one.
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
There was also a suspended sentence coupled with a $1000 fine, which ranked 23rd: ibid at 228.
There was a strong correlation from the results o f each group, hence it was legitimate to average the
scores o f the four groups.
Which was ranked 26th: note 87 supra at 228.
Which was ranked 33rd: ibid.
Ibid at 231. An earlier survey conducted by Sebba revealed that a $250 fine was regarded as more severe
than a six month suspended sentence: L Sebba, “Some Explorations in the Scaling o f Penalties” (1978)
15 Journal o f Research in Crime and Delinquency 247.
N Walker and C Marsh, “Do Sentences Affect Public Disapproval?” (1984) 24 British Journal o f
Criminology 27 at 31. A suspended sentence was regarded as the least punitive o f the penalties which
respondents were requested to place in order o f most to least punitive. The rankings which occurred
were: 12 months imprisonment, one month imprisonment, $100 fine, $40 fine, community service,
probation and, finally, the suspended sentence.
A Kapardis and DP Farrington, “An Experimental Study o f Sentencing by Magistrates” (1981) 5 Law
and Human Behaviour 107.
A Freiberg and RG Fox, “Sentencing Structures and Sanction Hierarchies” (1986) 10 Criminal Law
Journal 216 at 228 and 220.
550
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
Volume 22(2)
IV . B A C K G R O U N D A N D O V E R V IE W O F P R E V E N T IV E
SEN TENCES
A.
The N ature o f P reven tive Sentences
A p rev e n tiv e se n te n c e is a sa n ctio n that is im p o sed in re sp o n se to so m e future
harm that it is a n ticip ated the ‘o ffe n d e r ’ m ay co m m it.
M orris n ea tly
en ca p su la tes the e s s e n c e o f p rev e n tiv e sen te n c es b y com p a rin g th em to p re­
em p tiv e strikes: “in the crim in al law , i f n o t in international rela tio n s, the p re­
em p tiv e strike h as great attraction; to capture the crim inal b efo r e the crim e is
co m m itted is su rely an allu rin g id e a ” .96
, T h u s the p ro te ctiv e se n te n c e im p o se s a p resen t e v il, n o rm a lly in the form o f
im p rison m en t, for crim in al b eh a v io u r w h ic h h as n o t as y e t occu rred and m a y in
fact n ev er o cc u r .97 It is aim ed at p e o p le w h o se p e r c e iv e d p ro p en sity for
en g a g in g in v io le n t98 b eh a v io u r is so h ig h that th ey are an u n a ccep ta b le risk to
the com m u n ity.
T w o other ty p es o f se n te n c e s h a v e a lso lo o s e ly b een referred to as p ro te ctiv e
sen ten ces: in d e fin ite sen te n c e s and ad d ition al fix e d se n te n c e s.99 In d efin ite
se n te n c e s are p e n a ltie s im p o se d w ith o u t a term in ation date.
T h e y can b e
im p o sed at the o u tset or as an e x te n sio n o f a norm al sen te n c e.
In d efin ite
se n te n c e s are ty p ic a lly re v ie w a b le at d e fin ed in tervals b y a cou rt and are n o w
a v a ila b le in m an y A u stralian ju r isd ic tio n s.100 A d d itio n a l se n te n c e s are sa n ctio n s
that are im p o sed b ey o n d that w h ic h is appropriate for the particular o ffe n c e ,
n o rm a lly due to p rev io u s o ffe n c e s w h ic h h ave b e e n co m m itte d b y the
o ffe n d e r .101 T h e m ain d iffer en ce b e tw e e n p rev en tiv e sen te n c es o n the o n e hand
and in d efin ite and ad d ition al se n te n c e s on the other is that p rev e n tiv e se n te n c e s
96
97
98
N Morris, “Dangerousness and Incapacitation” in A Duff and D Garland (eds), A Reader on Punishment,
Oxford University Press (1994) 241 at 241.
See also PA Fairall, “Violent Offenders and Community Protection in Victoria - The Gary David
Experience” (1993) 17 Criminal Law Journal 40 at 50. Fairall defines a preventive sentence as “the
incarceration o f individuals so as to incapacitate or prevent them from committing crimes in the future”.
The economy o f dangerousness was not always the risk to physical integrity. In the early part o f this
century it was the risk to one's property: J Pratt, Governing the Dangerous: Dangerousness, Law and
Social Change, Federation Press (1997) pp 8-70. Pratt provides a thorough analysis o f the evolution o f
the concept o f dangerousness. Pratt states that the focus o f dangerousness mainly relates to violence,
offences against children and sexual offences, and that the focus on habitual offenders has disappeared, p
100.
99
100
101
Note 4 supra at 125.
For example, see Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 18A-P (see Moffat v R (1997) 91 A Crim R 557, where
an indefinite sentence was imposed); Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Pt 10 (see R v Eather
(unreported, District Court (Qld), Daly DCJ, 26 October 1993) where an application for an indefinite
sentence was refused); Sentencing Act 1995 (NT), ss 65-78; Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), ss 98-101;
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), Pt 2, Div III; Criminal Code 1924 (Tas), s 392 (see Read v R
(1997) 94 A Crim R 539). The most extreme indefinite sentence provision which relies on predictions o f
future dangerousness is found in Texas, where capital punishment can follow instead o f life
imprisonment where “there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts o f violence
that would constitute a continuing threat to society” ( Texas Code Crim Proc Ann s 37.071).
For example, see Crimes Act 1900 (NSW ), ss 115, 443; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), s 22;
Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), Pt 2A; Criminal Justice Act 1991, ss l(2)(b), 2(2)(b). For an analysis o f
such provisions, see RJ Henham, “Dangerousness, Rationality and Sentencing Policy” (1997) 26 AngloAmerican Law Review 493.
1999
UNSW Law Journal
551
relate s o le ly to an ticip ated future harm , rather than, at lea st partly, to co n d u c t
w h ic h h as alread y o cc u r red .102 It is for th is reason that o n ly p ro te ctiv e sen te n c e s
are p rop erly the in v e rse o f su sp en d ed sen ten ces. A c c o r d in g ly , I w ill fo c u s o n ly
o n them .
B.
Preventive Sentence Legislation
In A u stralia there h a v e b een tw o separate p ie c e s o f le g isla tio n w h ic h h a v e
p ro v id ed for p ro te ctiv e sen ten ces: the C om m unity P ro tectio n A ct 1 9 9 0 ( V ic ) 103
and the C om m unity P ro tectio n A ct 1 994 (N S W ).104 B o th w ere a d hom inem in
nature: ea c h w a s d irected at a particular ‘d a n g e ro u s’ in d iv id u a l.105
The
V icto ria n A c t targeted Garry W eb b (a lso k n o w n as Garry D a v id ) and the N e w
S outh W a le s le g isla tio n a p p lied o n ly to G regory K ab le.
T he V icto ria n A c t a llo w e d for the p rev en tiv e d eten tio n o f G arry D a v id for up
to 12 m o n th s i f the S up rem e C ourt w a s sa tisfied that h e p resen ted a risk to the
sa fe ty o f an y m em b er o f the p u b lic and that it w a s lik e ly that h e w o u ld co m m it
an y act o f p erson al v io le n c e to an y other p e r so n .106 T he N S W le g isla tio n
p ro v id ed that a cou rt c o u ld order the p rev en tiv e d eten tio n o f G regory K a b le for
up to six m on th s w h ere it w a s sa tisfie d on the b a la n ce o f p ro b a b ilities that K a b le
w a s m ore lik e ly than n o t to co m m it a seriou s act o f v io le n c e .107 T h is le g isla tio n
w a s en a cted in r e sp o n se to co n cern s that K ab le, w h o w a s due for r e le a se after
serv in g a sen te n c e for th e m an slau gh ter o f h is w ife , w o u ld harm r e la tiv es o f the
d e c e a se d w h o m h e had sen t th reaten ing letters from ja il. M u ltip le a p p lica tio n s
co u ld b e m ad e for the d eten tio n o f K able; thus e f fe c tiv e ly h e co u ld b e d eta in ed
in d efin ite ly .
T h e V icto ria n A c t w a s rep ea led in 1993 fo llo w in g the su ic id e d eath o f Garry
D a v id .108 In K a b le v D P P (N SW ),'09 the N e w S ou th W a le s A c t w a s ru led in v a lid
b y the H ig h C ourt. B y a fou r to tw o m ajority110 it w a s h eld that the A c t v io la te d
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Indefinite and additional sentences also violate the principle o f proportionality, see Chester v R (1988)
165 CLR 611 at 619 where indefinite sentences were described as stark and extraordinary.
As amended by the Community Protection (Amendment) Act 1991 (Vic). For background leading to the
passing o f the Act, see D Greig, “The Politics o f Dangerousness” in S Gerull and W Lucas (eds), Serious
Violent Offenders: Sentencing, Psychiatry and Law Reform, Conference Proceedings , Australian
Institute o f Criminology (1993) 47 at 56-8. The Community Protection (Violent Offenders) Bill 1992
(Vic), which was a more generalised form o f the Community Protection Act 1990 (Vic), was ultimately
not passed following heavy criticism by the Parliament o f Victoria Social Development Committee,
Inquiry into Mental Disturbance and Community Safety: Third Report: Response to the Draft
Community Protection (Violent Offenders) Bill , 1992.
See also Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1993 (NZ), s 34(1 )(b) which provides for preventive detention
where the court is satisfied “that there is substantial risk that the offender will commit a [relevant]
offence upon release”.
For a discussion regarding the perceived difficulties in defining dangerousness: see P Mullen, “Mental
Disorder and Dangerousness” (1984) 18 Australia and New Zealand Journal o f Psychiatry 8; P Scott,
“Assessing Dangerousness in Criminals” (1977) 131 British Journal o f Psychiatry 140; D Greig, note
103 supra at 53.
Community Protection Act 1990 (Vic), ss 4, 8.
Community Protection Act 1994 (NSW), s 5(1).
Sentencing (Amendment) Act 1993 (Vic), s 17.
(1997) 189 CLR 51 {Kable).
Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow JJ; Brennan CJ and Dawson J dissenting.
552
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
Volume 22(2)
the sep aration o f p o w e r s d o c tr in e " 1 em b o d ied in C hapter III o f the
C o m m o n w ea lth C o n stitu tio n b e c a u se it con ferred a n o n -ju d icia l fu n ctio n on the
S up rem e C ourt b y requ irin g the C ourt to p articip ate in a p ro ce ss w h ic h w a s “far
rem o v ed from th e ju d ic ia l p r o c e ss that is ord inarily in v o k ed w h en a cou rt is
a sk ed to im p rison a p er so n ”, " 2 and w a s so repugnant that it e x c e e d e d the ou ter
lim its o f ju d ic ia l p o w er.
E ach m em b er o f th e m ajority had d ifferen t rea so n s for strik ing d o w n the A ct.
H o w ev e r, there w e r e several featu res o f the A c t w h ic h the C ourt fou n d
p articu larly o ffe n siv e . F or o n e, it rem o v ed th e ordinary p ro te ctio n s inh eren t in
the ju d ic ia l p ro c e ss b y p erm ittin g th e d ep rivation o f lib erty w ith o u t a fin d in g o f
g u ilt for an o f f e n c e ,113 and e n a b lin g an o p in io n to b e form ed on the b a sis o f
m aterial that m a y n o t b e a d m issib le in le g a l p r o c e e d in g s." 4 A ls o , th e o u tco m e
o f an y ap p lica tio n ap peared to b e p re-d eterm in ed b y th e L eg isla tu re, sin c e it
clea r ly w a s n o t e n v isa g e d that an order to d etain K a b le w o u ld b e refu sed , and
th ereb y th e A c t se e m e d to m ak e the court an instrum ent o f the L e g isla tu r e .115
F in a lly , there w a s th e ad hominem nature o f th e le g is la tio n .116
T h u s th e le g isla tio n in Kable w a s struck d o w n b y the H ig h C ourt d u e to
u nique featu res o f the A c t w h ic h the C ourt b e lie v e d in frin g ed the sep aration o f
p o w er s d octrin e e m b o d ied in the C o n stitu tio n .117 H o w ev e r, in m y v ie w , th ere is
a m ore gen eral o b je c tio n to p ro tectiv e sen te n c es, w h ic h stem s from their
in c o m p a tib ility w ith the p rin cip le o f p rop ortion ality.
B e fo r e d isc u ssin g the
a p p lication o f th e p rin cip le o f p rop ortion ality to p ro te ctiv e (an d su sp en d ed )
sen te n c e s, I sh all first co n sid e r th e argum ents w h ic h are n o rm a lly le v e lle d
ag ain st p r o te ctiv e se n te n c es.
V. OBJECTIONS TO PREVENTIVE SENTENCES
A.
Punishment For Crimes Not Yet Committed
T h e m o st c o m m o n o b je c tio n to p ro tectiv e sen te n c e s rela tes to th e n o tio n o f
p u n ish in g p e o p le for crim es that h ave n o t b een co m m itted .
T h is lin e o f
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
The separation o f judicial power from executive and legislative power imposes two broad limits on
governmental power. First, Parliament cannot usurp judicial power and, secondly, functions cannot be
conferred on courts which are incompatible with the exercise o f judicial power (it was this latter limit
which was violated in Kable). Although Kable concerned state legislation, and the separation o f powers
doctrine was not a feature o f the constitution o f any o f the states, the High Court nevertheless held that
the doctrine was applicable to state courts because state courts are invested with and exercise federal
jurisdiction (see note 109 supra at 143, per Gummow J; at 114-15, per McHugh J).
Note 109 supra at 122, per McHugh J.
For example, see ibid at 106-7, per Gaudron J; at 98, per Toohey J; at 122, per McHugh J; at 132-4, per
Gummow J.
For example, see ibid at 106-7, per Gaudron J; at 122, per McHugh J.
Ibid at 122, per McHugh J.
Ibid at 134, per Gummow J; at 98, per Toohey J.
For comment regarding the legality o f the Victorian Act see note 97 supra at 40, 46-9; D Wood, “A One
Man Dangerous Offenders Statute - The Community Protection Act 1990 (V ic)” (1990) 17 Monash
University Law Review 497 at 501-5. For an analysis o f Kable , see J Miller, “Criminal Cases in the High
Court o f Australia” (1997) 21 Criminal Law Journal 92.
1999
UNSW Law Journal
553
rea so n in g h as b e e n d e v e lo p e d in several w a y s. It h as b een c la im e d that it is
sim p ly in h eren tly u nfair to p u n ish in su ch circ u m sta n c e s.118 A n d , it h as b e e n
argued that p ro te ctiv e se n te n c e s are in tu itiv e ly a n ta g o n istic to the n o tio n o f
pun ishm en t: “o n e m a y p ro m ise p u n ish m en t (or rew ard) for a future a ctio n , b ut to
aw ard it in ad van ce w o u ld so m e h o w se e m to m ak e it so m e th in g else; a deterrent
or in c e n tiv e ” .119 D e sp ite the co m m o n sen se ap peal o f su ch argum ents, c lo se r
scru tin y r e v ea ls that their p ersu a siv e n e ss d ep en d s la rg ely on w h ic h th eo ry o f
p u n ish m en t o n e ad opts.
T h e first p o in t to n o te is that a sou n d argum ent can b e m o u n ted that p ro te ctiv e
se n te n c e s are n o t in trin sic a lly w ron g, and that any in tu itiv e u n e a se to w a rd s th em
stem s n o t from their p e r c e iv e d u n fairn ess but from an u n d erly in g
a ck n o w le d g e m e n t that h um an co n d u ct can n ev er b e a ccu ra tely d eterm in ed in
a d van ce. I f h um an co n d u c t co u ld b e a ccu rately p red icted the in tu itiv e d isq u iet
ab out p rev e n tiv e se n te n c e s w o u ld in m an y in sta n ces rea d ily d issip a te.
For
ex a m p le, i f a p erso n w h o w a s aw are o f the tragic ev e n ts in P ort A rthur,
T asm an ia, on 2 8 A p ril 1 9 9 6 w h en M artin B ryan t k ille d 35 p e o p le w e n t b a ck in
tim e to a m o m en t sh ortly b efo r e the in cid en t and had the op p ortu n ity to im p o se a
p ro tectiv e sen te n c e u p on B ryant, it is d ou b tfu l w h eth er m a n y in fo rm ed p e o p le
w o u ld raise the slig h te st p rotest at the d e c isio n to im p riso n B ryant. P red ictio n s
about h um an b eh a v io u r w ill o f co u rse n ev er b e c o m e so accurate that su ch
tra g ed ies c o u ld b e p r e c ise ly forecast. H o w ev e r, fan tastic e x a m p les su ch as th is
are h elp fu l sin c e th ey sharpen and illu m in a te the real p rem ise s and a ssu m p tio n s
u n d erlyin g our sen tim en ts and c o n c lu s io n s .120
(i)
U tilitarian a n d R etrib u tive A p p ro a ch es to P ro te c tiv e Sentences
T h e su g g e stio n that the a b o v e e x a m p le sh o w s that p ro te ctiv e se n te n c e s are n o t
in h eren tly w ro n g is p erh ap s so m e w h a t prem ature, sin c e it m a y d ep en d o n w h ic h
th eory o f p u n ish m en t is b e in g in vok ed . T here are tw o m ain con tem p o ra ry
th eo ries o f p u n ishm en t: u tilitarian ism and retrib u tiv ism .121 T h e u tilitarian th eo ry
o f p u n ish m en t regards p u n ish m en t in it s e lf as bad b e c a u se it ca u se s u n h a p p in ess
to the offen d er. P u n ish m en t is o n ly ju s tifie d b eca u se o f the w id er co n tin g en t
b e n e fits it p ro d u ces, w h ic h it is fe lt on b ala n ce o u tw e ig h the b ad c o n se q u e n c e s.
T h e su ffer in g it in flic ts on the o ffen d e r is o u tw e ig h e d b y the g o o d c o n se q u e n c e s
it p ro d u ces b y d isc o u r a g in g b o th the o ffen d e r from re -o ffe n d in g and p o ten tia l
o ffen d e rs from co m m ittin g crim es in the first p la c e, and th ereb y le a d in g to a
red u ction in the fr eq u en cy in w h ic h s o c ia lly d esira b le la w s are v io la ted . I f there
are a lternative form s o f p u n ish m en t w h ic h p rod u ce the sa m e g o o d c o n se q u e n c e s
118
119
120
121
See Victoria Law Reform Commission Report 31, The Concept o f Mental Illness in the Mental Health
Act 1986, 1990 where it is argued that preventive sentences are an affront to civil liberties.
Note 52 supra, p 69.
For a discussion regarding the use o f fantastic examples, see note 65 supra, pp 18-25.
Retributivism (under the banner o f just deserts) has replaced utilitarianism, at least ostensibly, as the
prime philosophical theory justifying punishment. However, I have previously argued that in reality a
utilitarian theory o f punishment still best fits the relevant sentencing variables: see note 80 supra. For an
overview o f the academic and social trends in punishment, see A Duff and D Garland, “Thinking about
Punishment” in A D uff and D Garland (eds), note 96 supra 1 at 8-16; A von Hirsch, note 79 supra, ch 1;
note 52 supra, ch 1; A Ashworth, note 37 supra, ch 13.
554
Volume 22(2)
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
w e m u s t c h o s e th e o n e w h ic h im p o s e s th e le a s t u n p le a s a n tn e s s o n th e o ffe n d e r .
On
th is
v ie w , th e
d e te r r in g
th e
m a in
c r im in a l
b e n e fit
and
o f p u n is h m e n t is
o th e r s
in
th e
th e
r e d u c tio n
c o m m u n ity
and
o f c r im e
r e h a b ilita tin g
by
th e
o f f e n d e r , th e r e b y r e in f o r c in g th e w r o n g n e s s o f c r im in a l b e h a v io u r p r o v id in g a
ta n g ib le s a n c tio n .
th e
c o m m is s io n
T h u s th e u tilita r ia n t h e o r y o f p u n is h m e n t is fo r w a r d lo o k in g :
of
a
c r im in a l
act
does
not
ju s tify
p u n is h m e n t,
p u n is h m e n t is o n ly w a r r a n te d b e c a u s e s o m e g o o d c a n f lo w fr o m th is .
fr o m
an
u tilita r ia n
p e r s p e c tiv e
th e r e
is
no
a b s o lu te
o b s ta c le
to
s e n te n c e s ; th e y a re j u s t if ie d w h e r e th is w ill in c r e a s e n e t h a p p in e s s .
in ste a d
C le a r ly ,
p r o te c tiv e
T h u s, i f w e
c o u ld b e c e r ta in th a t a p e r s o n w o u ld in th e fu tu r e c o m m it a n a c t r e s u lt in g in
im m e n s e s u ffe r in g th e n n e t h a p p in e s s w o u ld b e a d v a n c e d b y im p r is o n in g th e
p o t e n t i a l o f f e n d e r . 122123
H o w e v e r , th is c o n c lu s i o n d o e s n o t f o l l o w a s s u r e ly fr o m a r e tr ib u tiv e t h e o r y
o f p u n is h m e n t.
It h a s b e e n n o t e d t h a t r e t r i b u t i v i s t s a r e c o m m i t t e d t o t h e p o s i t i o n
th a t p r e v e n tiv e s e n t e n c e s are n e c e s s a r ily w r o n g :
once an offender has undergone his ‘just deserts’ sentence, he has ‘paid his debt to
society’ and is fully entitled to be released. To subject him to a further period of
imprisonment is to p u n i^ h im not for past offences, but for possible (and only
possible) future offences.
M o r r is c la im s th a t p r e v e n t iv e s e n t e n c e s a r e w r o n g e v e n i f w e c o u ld b e c e r ta in
th a t th e o f f e n d e r w ill o f f e n d in th e fu tu r e .
H e c o n te n d s th a t p e o p le s h o u ld b e
p u n is h e d fo r w h a t th e y h a v e d o n e , n o t fo r w h a t th e y w ill o r m ig h t d o .
P e o p le
s h o u ld b e tr e a te d a s r e s p o n s ib le m o r a l a g e n ts w h o c a n c h o o s e w h e th e r o r n o t to
c o m m i t f u t u r e c r i m e s , r a t h e r t h a n t r e a t i n g t h e m a s ‘u n e x p l o d e d b o m b s ’ . 124
W o o d r e j e c t s th e p r o p o s it io n th a t th e r e tr ib u tiv is t is n e c e s s a r ily c o m m it t e d to
th e in h e r e n t w r o n g n e s s o f p r e v e n t iv e s e n t e n c e s , o n th e b a s is th a t r e t r ib u t iv is m
o n ly o f f e r s a t h e o r y o f p u n is h m e n t , n o t a c o m p le t e a c c o u n t o f c ir c u m s t a n c e s in
w h ic h
p e o p le
se n te n c es
are
can
be
fo r c ib ly
u n j u s t if ie d ,
d e ta in e d .
c iv il
W ood
d e te n tio n
of
a r g u e s th a t w h ile
d an gerous
p r o te c tiv e
o ffen d e rs
m ay
be
p e r m is s ib le o n r e t r ib u t iv is t g r o u n d s a s th is h a s n o t h in g to d o w it h q u e s t io n s o f
d e s e r t b u t r a t h e r w i t h s o c i a l p r o t e c t i o n . 125
p r o te c tiv e
se n te n c e
a n d c iv il d e te n tio n
H o w e v e r , th e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n a
a p p e a r s illu s o r y .
C i v il d e t e n t i o n s t i l l
a m o u n ts to d e p r iv a tio n o f lib e r ty a g a in s t o n e ’s w ill.
T h is c o n s titu te s a fo r m o f
p u n is h m e n t o n
e a r lie r :
im p o s e d
on
th e b a s is
a p erso n .
o f th e
A
d e fin itio n
fe a th e r e d
b ir d
i r r e s p e c t i v e o f w h a t o n e c h o o s e s t o c a l l it .
a d o p te d
w ith
a b ill
th a t
a n u n p le a s a n tn e s s
q u ack s
is
a
duck
L e w is m a k e s th e p o in t s o m e w h a t
m o r e e lo q u e n tly :
122
123
124
125
See also J Floud and W Young, Dangerousness and Criminal Justice , Heinemann (1981) p 60. This
observation is supported by Farrington who states that “the use o f prediction within criminal justice
decision making might be justifiable within a utilitarian approach to penal treatment”: D Farrington,
“Predicting Individual Crime Rates” in D Gottfredson and M Tonry (eds), Prediction and Classification ,
University o f Chicago Press (1987) 1 at 5.
D Wood, “Dangerous Offenders and Civil Detention” (1989) 13 Criminal Law Journal 324 at 343.
Note 96 supra at 238.
D Wood, “Dangerous Offenders, and the Morality o f Protective Sentencing” [1988] Criminal Law
Review 424 at 425-6; note 123 supra.
1999
UNSW Law Journal
555
To be taken without consent from my home and friends, to lose my liberty, to
undergo all those assaults on my personality which modem psychotherapy knows
how to deliver ... to know that this process will never end until either my captors
have succeeded or I have grown wise enough to cheat them with apparent success who cares whether this is called punishment or not.126
T h u s , g iv e n th a t it c a n n o t b e te n a b ly a s s e r te d th a t fo r c ib le d e t e n t io n is n o t
p u n is h m e n t , it m a y s e e m th a t th e r e tr ib u tiv is t m a y b e c o m m it t e d to d e n o u n c in g
p r o te c tiv e s e n te n c e s p e r se .
T h is c o n c lu s io n is , a d m itte d ly , c o m p lic a t e d b y th e
p l e t h o r a o f d i f f e r e n t r e t r i b u t i v e t h e o r i e s t h a t h a v e b e e n a d v a n c e d . 27 R e t r i b u t i v e
t h e o r ie s o f p u n is h m e n t a r e n o t c le a r ly d e lin e a t e d a n d it is d if f ic u lt to is o la t e a
com m on
th r e a d r u n n in g
t h r o u g h t h e m . 128
A l l r e tr ib u tiv e t h e o r ie s
a ss e r t th a t
o ffe n d e r s d e s e r v e to s u ffe r , a n d th a t th e in s titu tio n o f p u n is h m e n t s h o u ld in f lic t
th e s u ffe r in g th e y d e s e r v e .
H o w e v e r , th e y p r o v id e v a s tly d iv e r g e n t a c c o u n ts o f
w h y c r i m i n a l s d e s e r v e t o s u f f e r . 129 D e s p i t e t h i s , t h e r e a r e t h r e e b r o a d s i m i l a r i t i e s
s h a r e d b y r e t r i b u t i v e t h e o r i e s . 130
T h e fir s t is th a t o n ly t h o s e w h o a re b la m e w o r th y d e s e r v e p u n is h m e n t a n d th a t
th is is th e s o le j u s t if ic a t io n fo r p u n is h m e n t.
T h u s , p u n is h m e n t is o n ly j u s t if ie d ,
b r o a d l y s p e a k i n g , i n c a s e s o f d e l i b e r a t e w r o n g d o i n g . 131
T h e s e c o n d is th a t th e
p u n i s h m e n t m u s t b e e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e l e v e l o f w r o n g d o i n g . 132 F i n a l l y , p u n i s h i n g
c r im in a ls
is ju s t
in
i t s e l f : 133 i t
c o n s e q u e n tia lis t g o a ls .
does
not
tu r n
on
th e
lik e ly
a c h ie v e m e n t
of
P u n is h m e n t is j u s t if ie d e v e n w h e n “w e are p r a c tic a lly
c e r ta in th a t a tte m p ts [to a tta in c o n s e q u e n t ia lis t g o a ls , s u c h
r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ] w i l l f a i l ” . 134
T h u s i s it o f t e n
a s d e te rr en ce
and
s a id th a t r e tr ib u tiv e t h e o r ie s a re
b a c k w a r d lo o k in g , m e r e ly f o c u s in g o n p a s t e v e n ts in o r d e r to d e te r m in e w h e th e r
p u n is h m e n t is j u s t if ie d , in c o n tr a s t to u tilita r ia n is m w h ic h is c o n c e r n e d o n ly w it h
th e lik e ly fu tu r e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f im p o s in g p u n is h m e n t.
T h e fir s t o f t h e s e s im ila r it ie s m a y a p p e a r to c o n s titu te a d e c is iv e a r g u m e n t
a g a in s t p r o t e c t iv e s e n t e n c e s in a r e tr ib u tiv e s y s t e m
o f p u n is h m e n t.
H ow ever,
th is is n o t n e c e s s a r ily th e c a s e i f th e c o n c e p t o f c r im in a lity is e x p a n d e d s lig h t ly .
W h ile d a n g e r o u s n e s s in i t s e l f d o e s n o t a m o u n t to a c r im in a l o f f e n c e , it d o e s
im p e r il th e s e c u r it y o f th e c o m m u n it y a n d b e c a u s e o f th is th r e a t it c o u ld b e
a r g u e d th a t p u n is h m e n t is w a r ra n ted .
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
V ie w e d in th is lig h t th e d a n g e r o u s p e r s o n
CS Lewis, “The Humanitarian Theory o f Punishment” in S E Grupp (ed), note 67 supra 301 at 304.
Further, it should be noted that, a sanction does not cease to constitute punishment merely because
psychiatric treatment is offered: see Power v R (1974) 131 CLR 623.
For an overview o f the different theories see note 65 supra , pp 38-65; J Cottingham, “Varieties o f
Retributivism” (1979) 29 Philosophical Quarterly 238.
See also note 71 supra , p 211.
For example, see A D uff and A von Hirsch, “Responsibility, Retribution and the ‘Voluntary’: A
Response to W illiams” [1997] Cambridge Law Review 103 at 107.
J Anderson, “Reciprocity as a Justification for Retributivism” (1997) 16 Criminal Justice Ethics 13. As
Anderson points out, all o f these factors are present in what Hart refers to as “crude Retributivism”. See
HLA Hart, Punishment and Responsibility , Oxford University Press (1963) pp 231-7.
J Anderson, note 130 supra at 13, 14.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Note 68 supra, p 7.
556
Volume 22(2)
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
i s n o t i n n o c e n t : t h r o u g h h i s o r h e r b e h a v i o u r h e o r s h e h a s c a u s e d s o c i a l e v i l . 135
S u c h a n a p p r o a c h is s u p p o r te d b y th e fa c t th a t r e tr ib u tiv is ts h a v e n o d i f f i c u lt y
w it h p u n is h in g p e o p le w h o e n g a g e in o th e r t y p e s o f c o n d u c t w h e r e th e h a r m
c o n s is ts
s o le ly
e x h ib itin g
lik e ly
to
o f th r e a te n in g to
v io la te
th e
s e c u r it y
te n d e n c ie s , b y w o r d s o r c o n d u c t, w h ic h
le a d
c la s s ifie d
as
to
a g g r e s s iv e
c r im in a l
or
h a r m fu l
b e h a v io u r
and
b e h a v io u r
w o u ld
be
o f o th e r s.
In th is w a y ,
are v ie w e d
a s p o te n tia lly
to w a r d s
a k in
to
o th e r s
c o u ld
be
su ch
as
o ffen ce s
s t a l k i n g , 136 t h r e a t s t o k i l l o r i n f l i c t s e r i o u s i n j u r y , 137 a n d c o n d u c t e n d a n g e r i n g l i f e
o r p e r s o n s . 138
to
d e n o u n c in g
T h u s e v e n th e r e tr ib u tiv is t is n o t n e c e s s a r ily l o g ic a l ly c o m m it t e d
p r o te c tiv e
se n te n c e s
and
m ay
th e r efo r e
be
w illin g
to
p u n is h
p e o p l e p u r e l y o n a c c o u n t o f t h e i r d a n g e r o u s n e s s . 139
It s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e a b o v e a n a l y s i s a p p l i e s i r r e s p e c t i v e o f w h e t h e r o r
n o t th e p e r s o n h a s c o m m itte d p r e v io u s a c ts o f v io le n c e .
T o th e c o n tr a ry , G r o s s
c o n te n d s th a t p r o te c tiv e s e n te n c e s are o n ly j u s t if ie d fo r th o s e w h o h a v e a lr e a d y
c o m m itte d
s o c ia l
o ffen ce s, b eca u se b y
c o n tr a c t
w ith
th e
rest
d o in g
so
o f s o c ie ty
t h e y h a v e b r e a c h e d th e ir s u p p o s e d
w h ic h
p r o v id e s
th a t
once
a
p erson
c o m m it s a n o f f e n c e t h e y f o r fe it c e r ta in r ig h ts a n d s o c i e t y c a n d e a l w it h t h e m a s
i t s e e s f i t . 140 N o t o n l y i s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s u c h a c o n t r a c t h i g h l y d u b i o u s , b u t i t i s
u n c le a r w h y th e f o c u s o f th e in q u ir y s h o u ld b e s o l e ly o n p a s t c o n d u c t, w h e n th e
a im
o f p r o te c tiv e
se n te n c e s
is to p r e v e n t fu tu r e h a r m
c o m m u n ity u n e a s e a b o u t th e p r o s p e c t o f s u c h h a rm .
a n d /o r c u r ta il e x is t in g
P r e v io u s c o n d u c t is o n ly
o n e o f m a n y fa c to r s th a t m a y le a d to a d ia g n o s is o f d a n g e r o u s n e s s - i f o n e w a s
a w a r e in a d v a n c e o f th e e v e n ts o f th e P o r t A r th u r m a s s a c r e , w h e th e r o r n o t
B r y a n t h a d p r io r c o n v i c t i o n s w o u ld b e t o t a lly ir r e le v a n t t o a d e c is io n r e g a r d in g
th e a p p r o p r ia te n e s s o f a p r o te c tiv e s e n te n c e .
B.
Inability to Predict Dangerousness
T h u s it w o u ld a p p e a r th a t w h ic h e v e r t h e o r y o f p u n is h m e n t o n e a d o p ts , th e r e is
no
fu n d a m e n ta l o b je c tio n
c o m m itte d .
to p u n is h in g p e o p le
fo r c r im e s th a t t h e y h a v e n o t
D e s p it e th is , in m y v ie w , p r o t e c t iv e s e n t e n c e s a r e u n ju s tifie d .
The
r e a l o b j e c t io n t o p r o t e c t iv e s e n t e n c e s l ie s n o t in th e ir p r e m a tu r e c h a r a c te r ( t h is is
m e r e ly
135
136
137
138
139
140
a m a tte r o f tim in g ) b u t in
o u r in a b ility
to
c o n fid e n tly p r e d ic t fu tu r e
N Morris, note 96 supra at 250 suggests that diagnoses o f dangerousness should be regarded as a
statement about a person’s present condition, as opposed to a prediction o f future conduct. The
continuing offence concept is also adverted to by D Wood, note 125 supra at 429.
For example, Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 21 A.
For example, Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 20, 21.
For example, Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 22, 23.
This would o f course require an offence o f ‘dangerousness’ to be created. This would best be achieved
by making ‘dangerousness’ a continuing offence which only ceases upon the person appropriately
attenuating his or her threatening behaviour. Duff, a leading retributivist, contends that punishment must
be for an offence, and an offence is something which the “law prohibits and condemns as a moral
wrong”: note 68 supra , p 153. It is arguable that the social unease created by dangerous people means
that such a propensity is immoral, and thus there would not appear to be any fundamental retributive
objection to creating an offence o f dangerousness.
H Gross, “Proportional Punishment and Justifiable Sentences” in H Gross and A von Hirsch (eds),
Sentencing, Oxford University Press (1981) 272 at 272. See also J Floud and W Young, note 122 supra ,
p 138.
1999
557
UNSW Law Journal
h u m a n c o n d u c t.
im p o s s ib le to
G iv e n th e c o m p le x it y a n d u n p r e d ic ta b ility o f h u m a n n a tu r e it is
f o r e c a s t fu tu r e b e h a v io u r w it h a n y d e g r e e o f c e r ta in ty .
F u tu r e
p r o m is e s , u n d e r ta k in g s a n d d e c la r e d in t e n t io n s a re o n e g u id e , b u t a r e fa r fr o m
c o n c lu s iv e .
not
o n ly
P e o p le c h a n g e fo r th e w o r s e , b u t fo r th e b e tte r a s w e ll.
c o n tin g e n t
upon
fu n d a m e n ta l
v a lu e s
and
b e lie fs ,
but
B e h a v io u r is
a ls o
on
th e
c ir c u m s t a n c e s in w h ic h w e fin d o u r s e lv e s .
A lth o u g h
p ast co n d u ct m a y b e regard ed
a s a p o w e r f u l in d ic a t o r o f fu tu r e
p r o p e n s i t i e s , 141 a n d a r g u a b l y b a s i c v a l u e s a n d p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s a r e p e r v a s i v e , 142
c u r r e n t e m p ir ic a l e v id e n c e r e v e a ls th a t th e r e is n o r e lia b le m e th o d fo r p r e d ic tin g
d a n g ero u sn ess.
P a r k e a n d M a s o n h a v e n o t e d th a t :
There is a wealth of material on the assessment of risk and the prediction of
dangerous behaviour. But despite these vast outpourings, there are no reliable
actuarial and statistical devices as yet ^ a t can predict with any degree of certainty
the likelihood of dangerous behaviour. 4
T h e e m p ir ic a l e v id e n c e w h ic h d o e s e x is t r e v e a ls a te n d e n c y to g r e a tly o v e r
ex a g g er a te
o ffen d e rs
p r e d ic tin g
t i m e . 146
th e
p r o b a b ility
c o m m it
o th e r
of
s e r io u s
d a n g ero u sn ess,
fu tu re
dan gerous
o f f e n c e s 145 a n d
p s y c h ia t r is t s
are
b e h a v i o u r . 144
s tu d ie s
w rong
have
about
70
F ew
sh ow n
per
cent
s e r io u s
th a t
in
o f th e
In K a b le , G a u d r o n J d e s c r ib e d th e p r e d ic tio n o f d a n g e r o u s n e s s a s “th e
m a k i n g o f a g u e s s - p e r h a p s a n e d u c a t e d g u e s s , b u t n o n e t h e l e s s a g u e s s ” 147 a n d
M c H u g h J s ta te d th a t it is “ a p r e d ic t io n w h ic h c a n a t b e s t b e b u t a n in fo r m e d
g u e s s ” . 148 C u r i o u s l y , w h i l e t h e p s y c h i a t r i c p r o f e s s i o n h a s r e p e a t e d l y s t r e s s e d t h e
u n r e lia b ilit y o f p s y c h ia tr ic p r e d ic t io n s o f d a n g e r o u s b e h a v io u r , th e c o u r ts a p p e a r
t o b e i n c r e a s i n g l y r e l y i n g o n t h e m . 149
T h u s it is im p o s s ib le to b e c o n f id e n t th a t a c o u r t w h ic h u n d e r ta k e s a n in q u ir y
in to
th e
d a n gerou sn ess
of
an
in d iv id u a l,
u s in g
th e
b est
p o s s ib le
resou rces
a v a ila b le , is lik e ly to c o m e to th e c o r r e c t d e c is io n .
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
See comments in Kennan v David [No 2] (unreported, Supreme Court o f Victoria, Hedigan J, 15
November 1991) at 33.
See CR Williams, “Psychopathy, Mental Illness and Preventive Detention: Issues Arising from the Gary
David Case” (1990) 16 Monash University Law Review 161 at 181-2, where he argues that in relation to
people convicted o f serious violent offences reliable predictions can be made regarding their future
conduct. However, as was pointed out by PA Fairall, note 97 supra at 51, Williams offers no empirical
evidence in support o f such an assertion.
J Parke and B Mason, “The Queen o f Hearts in Queensland: A Critique o f Part 10 o f the Penalties and
Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)” (1995) 19 Criminal Law Journal 312 at 322.
See notes 96 and 125 supra ; J Floud, “Dangerousness and Criminal Justice” (1982) 22 British Journal o f
Criminology 213; SR Brody and R Tarling, Taking Offenders Out o f Circulation , HMSO, Research
Study No 64 (1981); J Monahan and HJ Steadman (eds), Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments
in Risk Assessment, University o f Chicago Press (1994).
J Floud, note 144 supra at 217.
J Monahan, “The Prediction o f Violent Behaviour: Toward a Second Generation o f Theory and Policy”
(1984) 141(1) American Journal o f Psychiatry 10. Another study revealed a false positive rate o f about
65 per cent: see K Kozol, “Dangerousness in Society and Law” (1982) 13 Toledo Law Review 241. For
an extensive discussion on the research into dangerousness see P Shea, Psychiatry in Court, Saunders
(1996) pp 155-63; note 98 supra , pp 171-7.
Note 109 supra at 106.
Ibid at 123. See also Veen v R [No 1] (1979) 143 CLR 458 at 462-7, 494.
Note 96 supra at 244.
558
Volume 22(2)
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
G iv e n
th is , th e u n e a s e
to w a r d s p r o te c tiv e
se n te n c e s
ste m s n o t n e c e s s a r ily
fr o m th e c o n v ic t io n th a t p e o p le s h o u ld n o t b e p u n is h e d fo r c r im e s th a t t h e y h a v e
n o t c o m m itte d , b u t fr o m
c o n fid e n c e
o ffen ce s
th a t le f t to
in
th e
th e
fa c t th a t w e
th e ir o w n
fu tu re .
T h is
c a n n o t p r e d ic t w ith
d e v ic e s th e y
o b je c tio n
to
w o u ld
p r o te c tiv e
in
any degree
of
fa c t c o m m it s e r io u s
se n te n c e s
has
a
str o n g
fo u n d a t io n in s e n t e n c in g la w : th e p r in c ip le o f p r o p o r tio n a lity .
VI.
A.
THE PRINCIPLE OF PRO PO R TIO N A LITY
Statement of the Principle
In sh o r t, th e p r in c ip le o f p r o p o r tio n a lity is th a t th e p u n is h m e n t s h o u ld f it th e
c r im e .
It o p e r a t e s t o r e s tr a in e x c e s s i v e , a r b itr a r y a n d c a p r ic i o u s p u n is h m e n t b y
r e q u i r i n g t h a t p u n i s h m e n t m u s t n o t e x c e e d t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e o f f e n c e , 150 e v e n
w here
it
seem s
c e r ta in
th a t
th e
o ffen d e r
w ill
im m e d ia te ly
r e - o f f e n d . 151
P r o p o r t i o n a l i t y i s n o t a j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r p u n i s h m e n t , b u t r a t h e r a r e s t r a i n t o n i t . 152
It is a p r in c ip le w h ic h g e n e r a lly s t r ik e s a s t r o n g in t u it iv e c o r d , a n d p r o b a b ly fo r
th is r e a s o n is fo u n d n o t o n ly in s e n te n c in g la w , b u t tr a n s c e n d s m a n y o th e r a r e a s
o f th e
la w
as
w e ll.
As
Fox
n o te s,
th e
n o tio n
th a t
th e
resp on se
m u st
be
c o m m e n s u r a te to th e h a r m c a u s e d o r so u g h t to b e p r e v e n te d is a t th e c o r e o f th e
c r im in a l d e f e n c e s o f s e l f - d e f e n c e a n d p r o v o c a t io n .
It i s a l s o a t t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f
c iv i l la w d a m a g e s fo r in ju r y o r d e a th , w h ic h a im to c o m p e n s a t e fo r t h e a c tu a l
l o s s s u f f e r e d , a n d e q u it a b le r e m e d ie s , w h ic h a r e p r o p o r tio n a l to th e d e tr im e n t
s o u g h t t o b e a v o i d e d . 153
P r o p o r t i o n a l i t y i s o n e o f t h e m a i n o b j e c t i v e s o f s e n t e n c i n g 154 a n d t h e H i g h
C o u r t d e c i s i o n s i n V e en v R [ N o l ] 155 a n d V een v R [ N o 2 ] 1561
57e v e n w e n t a s f a r a s
d e c la r in g it t o b e th e p r e d o m in a n t o b j e c t iv e o f s e n t e n c in g in A u s tr a lia .
j u r i s d i c t io n s it i s tr e a te d j u s t a s im p o r t a n t ly .
C a n a d ia n
se n te n c in g
sy stem
it h a s b e e n
n o te d
In o t h e r
F o r e x a m p le , in r e la t io n t o th e
th a t “ th e p a r a m o u n t p r in c ip le
g o v e r n in g th e d e te r m in a tio n o f a s e n t e n c e is th a t th e s e n t e n c e b e p r o p o r tio n a te to
th e g r a v ity o f th e o f f e n c e a n d th e d e g r e e o f r e s p o n s ib ilit y o f th e o f f e n d e r fo r th e
o f f e n c e ” . 57 I n a s i m i l a r v e i n , t h e W h i t e P a p e r f o r m i n g t h e b a s i s o f t h e C r im in a l
J u s tic e A c t 1 9 9 1 ( U K ) d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e a i m o f t h e r e f o r m s w a s t o i n t r o d u c e a
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
For a good overview o f the proportionality principle, see A Ashworth, note 37 supra; RG Fox, “The
Meaning o f Proportionality in Sentencing” (1994) 19 Monash University Law Review 489 at 492.
For example, in R v Jenne [1956] Crim L R 495 the court reduced a term o f imprisonment despite the
fact that the court believed that “it is certain that the defendant will reoffend as soon as he leaves jail”.
RG Fox, note 150 supra at 491. See also A Von Hirsh, “Censure and Proportionality” in A D uff and D
Garland (eds), note 96 supra 115 at 115.
RG Fox, note 150 supra at 491. For a historical overview o f the proportionality principle, see RG Fox,
“The Killings o f Bobby Veen: The High Court on Proportionality in Sentencing” (1988) 12 Criminal
Law Journal 339 at 350-1.
Australian Law Reform Commission Report 44, Sentencing, 1988 at 15-16; note 4 supra at 492; note 55
supra at 5.
Note 148 supra.
Note 85 supra.
Canadian Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach , 1986 at 154.
1999
559
UNSWLaw Journal
“ le g is la t iv e fr a m e w o r k fo r s e n te n c in g , b a s e d o n th e s e r io u s n e s s o f th e o f f e n c e
a n d j u s t d e s e r t s ” . 158
how ever
th e
U l t i m a t e l y t h e A c t d i d n o t e x p r e s s l y a d o p t t h e s e g o a l s , 159
m essage
w as
r e c e iv e d
in
r e la tio n
to
th e
le n g th s
of
c u s t o d ia l
s e n t e n c e s , t h e o b l i g a t i o n s o f c o m m u n i t y s e n t e n c e s a n d t h e q u a n t u m o f f i n e s . 160
B.
Proportionality and Protective and Suspended Sentences
T h e im p o r ta n c e a ttr ib u te d to p r o p o r t io n a lit y is e v id e n t f r o m th e f a c t th a t it
c a n n o t e v e n b e tr u m p e d b y w h a t m a n y b e l ie v e to b e th e m o s t im p o r ta n t a im o f
s e n t e n c i n g : c o m m u n i t y p r o t e c t i o n . 1611623 I n t h e c a s e o f d a n g e r o u s o f f e n d e r s , w h i l e
c o m m u n it y p r o t e c t io n r e m a in s a n im p o r ta n t o b j e c t iv e , a t c o m m o n la w it c a n n o t
o v e r r id e th e p r in c ip le o f p r o p o r tio n a lity .
A s e n te n c e c a n n o t b e in c r e a se d b e y o n d
th a t w h ic h is c o m m e n s u r a t e w it h th e g r a v ity o f th e o f f e n c e in o r d e r to in c r e a s e
th e p e r io d fo r w h ic h th e c o m m u n it y is p r o te c te d : “ a n e x t e n s io n [in s e n t e n c e ] b y
w a y o f p r e v e n tiv e d e te n tio n
s e n te n c in g
... i s i m p e r m i s s i b l e , [ h o w e v e r ] a n e x e r c i s e o f t h e
d is c r e tio n h a v in g r e g a r d to th e p r o te c tio n
f a c t o r s ... i s p e r m i s s i b l e ” . 16
E v e n m o r e p o in te d ly , in
o f s o c ie ty
am ong
o th e r
C h e s te r v R , t h e H i g h
C o u r t h e ld th a t “ th e fu n d a m e n ta l p r in c ip le o f p r o p o r t io n a lit y d o e s n o t p e r m it th e
in c r e a s e o f a s e n t e n c e o f im p r is o n m e n t b e y o n d w h a t is p r o p o r tio n a l to th e c r im e
m e r e ly fo r th e p u r p o s e o f e x te n d in g th e p r o te c tio n o f s o c ie t y fr o m th e r e c id iv is m
o f t h e o f f e n d e r ” . 16
A n d it is fo r th is r e a s o n th a t it is “ fir m ly e s t a b lis h e d th a t o u r
c o m m o n l a w d o e s n o t s a n c t i o n p r e v e n t i v e d e t e n t i o n ” . 164
It f o l l o w s th a t s a n c t io n s m u s t b e c o m m e n s u r a t e w it h th e g r a v ity o f th e o f f e n c e
in lig h t o f its o b j e c t iv e c ir c u m s ta n c e s .
E x c e p t w h e r e le g is la tio n p r o v id e s to th e
c o n tr a r y , a s e n t e n c e c a n n o t e x c e e d th e g r a v ity o f th e s e r io u s n e s s o f th e o f f e n c e
in o r d e r to f u lf il s o m e o th e r o b j e c t iv e s u c h a s p r o te c tio n o f th e c o m m u n it y o r
d e t e r r e n c e . 165
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
Note 55 supra at [2.3].
See A Ashworth, note 37 supra , pp 81 -4.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 (UK), ss 2(2)(a), 6(2)(b), 18.
For example, see Channnon v R (1978) 20 ALR 1; R v Valenti (1980) 48 FLR 616 at 620; R v Williscroft
[1975] VR 292 at 298; R v Radlich [1954] NZLR 86 at 87; R v El Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 370 at
377.
Note 85 supra at 473. This distinction appears somewhat unclear. Fox suggests that it means that
community protection is relevant to the fixing o f a sentence within the outer limits established by other
criteria by the notion o f proportionality, as opposed to the view that community protection is a factor in
determining a proportionate sentence: RG Fox, “The Killings o f Bobby Veen: The High Court on
Proportion in Sentencing”, note 153 supra at 348.
Chester v R (1988) 165 CLR 611 at 618.
Ibid. See also Chivers v R [1993] 1 Qd R 432.
The principle is also given legislative recognition, for example Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5(l)(a), (c)
and (d); but c f s 6D(b), which provides that when a court is sentencing a serious offender (as defined in
s 6B) it may impose a sentence longer than that which is proportionate to the gravity o f the offence. See
RG Fox, “Legislation Comment: Victoria Turns to the Right in Sentencing Reform: The Sentencing
(Amendment) Act 1993 (V ic)” (1993) 17 Criminal Law Journal 394; Criminal Justice Act (UK),
ss 2(2)(a), 6(2)(b), 18(2)(a). See also Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 442B which allows disproportionate
sentences in certain circumstances, so long as the sentence is not ‘unreasonably’ disproportionate: Veen v
R [No 77, note 148 supra; Veen v R [No 2], note 85 supra.
560
Volume 22(2)
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
The Theoretical Basis for the Principle of Proportionality
C.
T r a d itio n a lly ,
p r o p o r tio n a lity
is
r e tr ib u tiv e t h e o r y o f p u n is h m e n t .
th e
am ount
o ffen ce .
o f p u n is h m e n t
In d eed ,
A n drew
is
th o u g h t
to
s it
m ost
c o m fo r ta b ly
w ith
a
T h is is b e c a u s e th e c r ite r io n fo r d e te r m in in g
r e tr o s p e c tiv e ,
von
H ir s c h
n a m e ly ,
(p e r h a p s
th e
th e
s e r io u s n e s s
le a d in g
of
th e
c o n te m p o ra r y
r e tr ib u tiv is t) a r g u e s th a t p r o p o r t io n a lit y s h o u ld b e th e m a in g o a l o f s e n t e n c i n g .1
H e c o n t e n d s th a t th e b a s is fo r p r o p o r t io n a lit y is e s s e n t ia lly th a t “p u n is h m e n t is
th e v e h ic le fo r c o n d e m n a tio n a n d a s a m a tte r o f fa ir n e s s p u n is h m e n t m u s t b e
p r o p o r tio n a te s in c e th e s e v e r ity o f th e s a n c tio n e x p r e s s e s th e s tr in g e n c y o f th e
b l a m e ” . 16167
I f t h is w e r e n o t th e c a s e , th a t is , “ w e r e p e n a lt ie s o r d e r e d in s e v e r it y
in c o n s is te n tly
w ith
th e
c o m p a r a tiv e
s e r io u s n e s s
of
th e
c r im e ,
th e
le s s
r e p r e h e n s i b l e c o n d u c t w o u l d , u n d e s e r v e d l y , r e c e i v e t h e g r e a t e r r e p r o b a t i o n ” . 168
U tilita r ia n s o n th e o th e r h a n d p la c e g r e a te r e m p h a s is o n p r o s p e c t iv e m a tte r s ,
s u c h a s th e n e e d fo r d e te r r e n c e , r e h a b ilita tio n a n d s o o n , w h e n d e c id in g w h a t
p u n is h is h m e n t
is
a p p r o p r ia te .
p r o p o r tio n a lity h a s n o
r o le
in
In d eed ,
it
a u tilita r ia n
has
even
sy ste m
been
c o n te n d e d
o f p u n is h m e n t.
th a t
B e n th a m ,
h o w e v e r , h a s a r g u e d th a t p r o p o r t io n a lit y in fa c t h a s a c e n tr a l r o le in a u tilita r ia n
th eo ry
o f p u n is h m e n t.
B e n th a m
a sse r te d
th a t c r im e s
sh o u ld b e p u n is h e d
in
p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e h a r m d o n e t o t h e l i f e a n d s e c u r i t y o f o t h e r s i n s o c i e t y . 169
If
c r im e s a re to b e c o m m it t e d it is p r e fe r a b le th a t o f f e n d e r s c o m m it le s s s e r io u s
r a th e r
th a n
g r a d u a te d
m ore
s e r io u s
c o m m e n su r a te
d is p o s e d to
o n es.
w ith
T h e r e fo r e ,
th e
c r im e w ill o p t fo r le s s
he
s e r io u s n e s s
argued,
o f th e
s e r io u s o f f e n c e s .
sa n c tio n s
o ffen ce
so
sh o u ld
th a t
be
th o se
A b s e n t p r o p o r tio n a lity ,
p o t e n t ia l o f f e n d e r s w o u ld n o t b e d e te r r e d fr o m c o m m it t in g s e r io u s o f f e n c e s a n y
m o r e th a n m in o r o n e s , a n d h e n c e w o u ld j u s t a s r e a d ily c o m m it th e m .
a r g u m e n t h a s b e e n p e r s u a s iv e ly c r itic is e d b y v o n
th e r e is n o
e v id e n c e
T h is
H ir s h , w h o p o in t s o u t th a t
th a t o f f e n d e r s m a k e c o m p a r is o n s r e g a r d in g th e le v e l o f
p u n i s h m e n t f o r v a r i o u s o f f e n c e s . 170
H o w e v e r , th e r e is a n a lte r n a tiv e
a r g u m e n t fo r r e c o g n is in g th e p r in c ip le
p r o p o r t io n a lit y in a u tilita r ia n t h e o r y o f p u n is h m e n t.
r is k b r in g in g
th e
e n tir e
c r im in a l j u s t ic e
sy stem
of
D is p r o p o r tio n a te s e n te n c e s
in to
d is r e p u te
b eca u se
su ch
s e n t e n c e s o f f e n d th e a p p a r e n tly p e r v a s iv e in tu itiv e b e lie f , a t th e r o o t o f w h ic h is
th e
broad
concep t
o f ju s tic e ,
th a t
p r iv ile g e s
and
o b lig a tio n s
ought
to
be
d is tr ib u te d r o u g h ly in a c c o r d a n c e w it h th e d e g r e e o f m e r it o r b la m e a ttr ib u ta b le
to e a c h in d iv id u a l.
C le a r v io la t io n s o f th is p r in c ip le le a d to a n tip a th y to w a r d s
in s titu tio n s o r p r a c tic e s w h ic h c o n d o n e s u c h o u tc o m e s .
F o r e x a m p le , r e c e n t ly it
h a s e m e r g e d th a t K e r r y P a c k e r , A u s tr a lia 's w e a lt h ie s t in d iv id u a l w h o s e p e r s o n a l
w e a lt h e x c e e d s f iv e b illio n d o lla r s , p a id n o ta x o v e r th e p e r io d
166
167
168
169
170
171
1 9 8 9 - 1 9 9 3 . 171
A von Hirsch, Censure and Sanctions, Oxford University Press (1993).
See A von Hirsch, “The Politics o f ‘Just Deserts’” (1990) 32 Canadian Journal o f Criminology 397 at
398. See also A Von Hirsch, note 152 supra at 125.
A von Hirsch, note 152 supra at 125.
Note 74 supra, pp 165-74.
A von Hirsch, note 79 supra, p 32.
See M Maiden, “How Does a Man Worth More than $5 Billion Get Away with Paying No Tax?” Age, 15
October 1998, p 3.
1999
561
UNSW Law Journal
F o ll o w i n g a p r o tr a c te d in v e s t ig a t io n b y th e A u s tr a lia n T a x a t io n O f f ic e in t o h is
f in a n c ia l a ffa ir s , th e F e d e r a l C o u r t r u le d th a t a c c o r d in g to th e la w w h ic h e x is t e d
at th e tim e , th e z e r o ta x p a id b y P a c k e r c o r r e c tly r e p r e s e n te d th e fu ll e x te n t o f
h i s t a x l i a b i l i t y . 172 T h i s l e d t o h o w l s o f c o m m u n i t y r e s e n t m e n t a n d e n m i t y , m o s t
n o t a b ly
in
th e
fo r m
of
c o u n tle s s
c a lls
to
ta lk -b a c k
r a d io
n e w s p a p e r s , d ir e c t e d a g a in s t th e A u s tr a lia n ta x a t io n s y s t e m .
and
le tte r s
to
T h e c r e d ib ility a n d
le g it im a c y o f th e e n tir e s y s t e m w a s q u e s t io n e d b e c a u s e it h a d f a ile d to e n s u r e
th a t th e l e v e l o f ta x p a id b y P a c k e r w a s in p r o p o r tio n to h is a b ilit y to p a y .
sa m e
p r in c ip le
c r im in a ls .
A
u n d e r lie s
th e
le g a l s y s te m
general
c o m m u n ity
a ttitu d e
to w a r d s
The
p u n is h in g
th a t c o n d o n e d e x c e s s iv e ly h a r sh , o r fo r th a t m a tter
le n ie n t, s e n t e n c e s w o u ld e v e n t u a lly lo s e th e su p p o r t o f m a n y m e m b e r s o f th e
c o m m u n i t y . 173 T h i s c o u l d r e s u l t i n l e s s c o - o p e r a t i o n w i t h o r g a n i s a t i o n s i n v o l v e d
in th e d e t e c t io n a n d p r o c e s s in g o f c r im in a ls a n d th e r e b y le a d to l e s s c r im e s b e in g
r e p o r t e d a n d s o l v e d a n d u l t i m a t e l y a d i m i n u t i o n i n c o m m u n i t y s a f e t y . 174
w o u ld
th e n
u n d e r m in e
th e
im p o r ta n t r o le
o f th e
c r im in a l
la w
in
T h is
p r o m o tin g
g e n e r a l h a p p in e s s .
The
d iffe r e n c e
b e tw e en
a
u tilita r ia n
and
r e tr ib u tiv e
ju s tific a tio n
fo r
p r o p o r t io n a lit y is th a t in th e c a s e o f th e fo r m e r p r o p o r t io n a lit y is n o t a b s o lu te ; it
c a n b e v io la te d w h e r e th is w ill m a x im is e h a p p in e s s .
H o w e v e r , fo r th e p u r p o se s
o f th is d is c u s s io n th is d is tin c tio n is n o t s ig n ific a n t.
W h ile th e r e t r ib u tiv is t m a y
h a v e a m o r e a b s o lu t e a r g u m e n t fo r r e j e c t in g p r o t e c t iv e s e n t e n c e s , th e u tilita r ia n
n e e d o n ly s e r io u s ly c o n s id e r p r o te c tiv e s e n te n c e s i f th e a c c u r a c y o f p r e d ic tio n s
o f d a n g e r o u s n e s s im p r o v e d s u c h th a t lib e r ty ( w h ic h h a s e n o r m o u s w e i g h t in th e
u t i l i t a r i a n c a l c u l u s 175) i s o u t w e i g h e d b y t h e a m o u n t o f h a r m a p e r s o n m a y c a u s e
and
th e
lik e lih o o d
o f th e
harm
e v e n tu a tin g .
It is
u n c le a r
w h e th e r v io le n c e
p r e d ic t io n w i l l e v e r r e a c h a s u f f ic i e n t ly a d v a n c e d s ta te th a t th e u tilita r ia n n e e d
e v e n c o n te m p la te s u c h a b a la n c in g ta sk .
172
173
174
175
Packer rejected an offer to settle the matter with the Taxation Office out o f court on the basis that he pay
$30.55 for the three year period. Packer managed to minimise his tax essentially through the use o f
foreign tax shelters.
It was for this reason that in 1996 the Victorian Parliament, concerned about the community outrage
caused by a series o f apparently lenient sentences imposed by courts, sanctioned a community sentencing
survey. The survey was in “Crime & Punishment Insight: The Sentencing”, The Herald Sun, 29 July
1996. The results revealed that respondents wanted significantly tougher sentences to be imposed for
numerous offences (“Crime and Punishment: Your Verdict”, The Herald Sun, 13 September 1996, pp 1,
4, 12-15). This led to a significant increase in the maximum penalty for many indictable offences, see
Sentencing and Other Acts (Amendment) Act 1997 (Vic).
See T Tyler, Why People Obey the Law, Yale University Press (1990) pp 107, 175-6. Following a 1984
study o f approximately 1500 people who lived in Chicago about their contact with legal authorities,
Tyler noted that normative issues are closely linked with compliance with the law. People do not merely
obey the law because it is in their self-interest to do so, but also because they believe it is proper to do so.
See also E Lind and T Tyler, The Social Psychology o f Procedural Justice, Plenum Press (1988); M
Bagaric, “Instant Justice? The Desirability o f Expanding the Range o f Criminal Offences Dealt With on
the Spot” (1998) 24 Monash University Law Review 231.
JS Mill, “On Liberty” in M Wamock (ed), Utilitarianism, Fontana Press (1986) 126 at 135: “the sole end
for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty o f action o f
any o f their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
over any member o f a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good,
either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant”.
562
Volume 22(2)
Suspended Sentences and Preventive Sentences
W h ile
th e
in c o m p a tib ility
o f th e
p r o p o r t io n a lit y
p r in c ip le
w ith
p r o te c tiv e
s e n t e n c e s is c le a r , it s h o u ld a ls o b e n o t e d th a t t h is in c o m p a t ib ilit y e x t e n d s to
su sp en d ed se n te n c es.
T h is f o llo w s fr o m a n a s p e c t o f p r o p o r tio n a lity w h ic h is
o f t e n o v e r lo o k e d : th a t it is a d o u b le -e d g e d s w o r d .
A
g iv e
th e
s u ffic ie n t
w e ig h t
to
th e
s e r io u s n e s s
of
se n te n c e w h ic h d o e s n o t
o ffe n c e
v io la te s
th e
p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y p r i n c i p l e 176 i n t h e s a m e w a y a s a s e n t e n c e o v e r s t a t i n g t h e g r a v i t y
o f th e o ffe n c e .
“ L o g i c a l l y , p r o p o r t io n a lit y o p e r a te s to d e f in e th e lo w e r , a s w e l l
a s th e u p p e r r e a c h e s o f p u n is h m e n t, th u s c o n ta in in g e x c e s s iv e ly le n ie n t a s w e ll
a s o v e r l y s e v e r e r e s p o n s e s t o c r i m e ” . 177
A lth o u g h , p r a g m a tic a lly , it is ra re fo r
th e p r in c ip le o f p r o p o r tio n a lity to b e in v o k e d a s a b a s is fo r in c r e a s in g a s a n c tio n ,
if
th e
p r in c ip le
a p p lic a tio n .
A
is
to
be
sa n c tio n
tr e a te d
w h ic h
s e r io u s ly
is
a
th e r e
n u llity
is
in
no
te r m s
b a s is
of
fo r
th e
s e le c tiv e
am ount
of
u n p le a s a n t n e s s it i m p o s e s c le a r ly in f r in g e s t h is o th e r lim b o f th e p r o p o r t io n a lit y
p r in c ip le .
VII. C O NCLUSIO N
S u sp en d ed
se n te n c e s
sh o u ld b e
a b o lis h e d
p r im a r ily b e c a u s e t h e y d o n o t c o n s titu te
a s a s e n te n c in g
a r e c o g n is a b le
o p tio n .
fo r m
T h is is
o f p u n is h m e n t.
T h e y a ls o v io la t e th e im p o r ta n t s e n t e n c in g o b j e c t iv e o f p r o p o r tio n a lity .
app arent
se n te n c es.
fr o m
th e
sy m m e tr y
W hereas
‘o f f e n d e r ’ , n o r m a lly
b e tw e e n
p r e v e n tiv e
in
th e
su sp en d ed
se n te n c es
fo r m
se n te n c es
in flic t
and
im m e d ia te
o f im p r is o n m e n t , o n
T h is is
p r e v e n tiv e
harm
on
an
a c c o u n t o f th r e a te n e d
fu tu r e c r im in a l c o n d u c t , s u s p e n d e d s e n t e n c e s th r e a te n fu tu r e e v il ( r e s to r a tio n o f
th e te r m o f im p r is o n m e n t ) fo r c r im in a l c o n d u c t th a t h a s a lr e a d y o c c u r r e d .
sy m m e tr y
m ay
be
q u e s tio n e d
g e n e r a lly p r o m p t in tu itiv e
on
th e
u n ease,
b a s is
su sp en d ed
th a t
T h is
w h ile
p r e v e n tiv e
se n te n c e s
se n te n c es
are w id e ly
a c c e p te d .
H o w e v e r , th is d iv e r g e n c e o f s e n tim e n t is e x p lic a b le o n th e b a s is o f th e v ic tim s o f
th e u n f a ir n e s s in th e r e s p e c t iv e c a s e s .
In th e c a s e o f th e p r o te c tiv e s e n t e n c e , th e
a g g r ie v e d p a r ty is th e a c c u s e d , w h e r e a s w ith s u s p e n d e d s e n te n c e s th e a g g r ie v e d
p a r ty is th e e n tir e c o m m u n it y , w h ic h f o r e g o e s it s e n t it le m e n t t o a p p r o p r ia te ly
p u n is h
an
o ffe n d e r .
T h u s,
th e
reason
th a t
in tu itiv e ly
we
fin d
su sp en d ed
s e n te n c e s fa r le s s r e p u g n a n t th a n p r o te c tiv e s e n te n c e s is th e sa m e r e a s o n w e
a s s u m e th a t it i s w o r s e t o p u n is h t h e in n o c e n t , th a n t o a c q u it t h e g u ilt y : w i t h t h e
fo r m e r t h e a p p a r e n t h a r s h n e s s i s d ir e c t e d a t a p a r tic u la r id e n t if ia b le in d iv id u a l
w h o m u s t b e a r th e e n tir e b r u n t o f th e in j u s t ic e , r e a l o r p e r c e iv e d , w h e r e a s in th e
c a s e o f th e s u s p e n d e d s e n t e n c e th e u n fa ir n e s s is d ilu te d b y b e in g s p r e a d a m o n g s t
e a c h m e m b e r o f th e c o m m u n ity .
In p r in c ip le , th is d is t in c t io n is ir r e le v a n t a n d
c a n n o t b e p e r m it t e d t o s u b v e r t th e c o n c lu s io n th a t s u s p e n d e d s e n t e n c e s in f r in g e
th e p r in c ip le o f p r o p o r tio n a lity in th e s a m e m a n n e r a s p r o t e c t iv e s e n t e n c e s .
176
177
B o th
R vD odd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349.
RG Fox, note 150 supra at 495; A Von Hirsh, Doing Justice , Hill and Wang (1976) p 73; A von Hirsch,
note 79 supra.
1999
are
563
UNSW Law Journal
in a p p r o p r ia te
s e n te n c in g
o p tio n s .
M oreover,
ir r e s p e c tiv e o f w h ic h th e o r y o f p u n is h m e n t o n e a d o p ts.
th is
c o n c lu s io n
fo llo w s