|
This week
The speaker this week, Jenni Coady, surprised the Rotary Club of Balwyn audience when she turned the weekly meeting into a forensic view of a particular law case. ``You be the Judge” was the theme and it was interactive with Coady’s comments, questions and ultimately answers sparking debate among the members.
Lawyer Mark Caldwell (centre) introduced the speaker, Jenni Coady, to the club and his fellow lawyer Lewis Stephens.
Jenni Coady's background with the sentencing advisory council had given her unrivalled access to references to ensure the punishment fitted the crime.
Two relatively recent cases opened the debate – the alleged rampage by a 19 year old this week and the spectacle of a young offender blowing bubble gum in court when looking at the magistrate. The bubble gum offender was thought by the RCB members to have received an unusually harsh sentence.
She emphasised that current legislation required the judge or justice administering the punishment for a crime to begin from the bottom or lesser penalties rather than the most severe but the results had to be in line with community expectations including prospects for the offenders’ propensity for rehabilitation and their showing any remorse for their crime.
As her main reference, she used the case of a single mother of two who was involved in a car accident on the way to the hotel to buy more alcohol and the occupant in her car died - and she qualified her audience carefully first finding out those among the RCB diners who were lawyers.
When she asked whether there were any police among the audience she was surprised to discover not one.
``Usually at these meetings (she was accustomed to addressing Rotary meetings) there are usually one or two police,’’ she said.
She presented the case information from the point of view of the courtroom with interviews with the surviving driver of the car. She involved the audience by asking questions of them in a quick and engaging manner - `what would the charge be?’ `why would you say that?’ `any other charges?’ – leaving in no doubt that RCB members had better pay close attention.
The `more alcohol’ was a clue and the interview as it played out before the audience told of an afternoon when she and a friend had gone to the hotel on foot, spent the afternoon there and walked home. When they wanted more alcohol, it was raining – so the mother of two thought she was `OK to drive’ the relatively short distance to the hotel. It turned out she had convictions and been disqualified from driving.
When it came to sentencing she pointed out that community opinion was important when the judge was assessing any penalty. And it was important that the judgement be made where, if the punishment was to be severe, it would leave no easy opening for an appeal against the decision.
She noted that community feeling was moving against suspended sentences despite a shortage jail space. The feeling was also moving against correction orders such as Home Detention.
Several lawyers in the club correctly picked about a five year custodial sentence with a three year period of qualification for parole for the chief case under consideration – the road death resulting from a driver driving while disqualified and while under the influence of alcohol despite having a conviction for a similar offence.
The defendant appealed against their actual sentence of seven years incarceration and four years and some months before qualifying for parole and the qualifying period was reduced to four years ``because the judge had already given consideration of the circumstances of the case.’’
Denunciation of the crime was part of the community expectation of sentencing, she said. Rehabilitation was regarded as an issue. Effective sentencing relied on a balance between the interests of society and concerns for the victim and the interests of the offender.
In answer to a question, she said there was no uniformity within Australia towards sentences for individual crimes or the charges offenders may face.
|
