Sentencing reform
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:28): My question is to Mr Jennings, representing the Premier. I refer the minister to the time-honoured common-law doctrine of precedent, as well as to page 24 of the Victorian state government branded Sentencing Advisory Council document titled A Quick Guide to Sentencing, which says that in choosing a sentence a court is required to consider as a factor, and I quote:
the current sentencing practices for the offence type (the sentences that have been given for similar cases).
Can the minister confirm that in May 2019 that wording still provides an accurate description of Victorian government policy and law?
Mr JENNINGS (South Eastern Metropolitan—Leader of the Government, Special Minister of State, Minister for Priority Precincts, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) (12:28): I thank Ms Maxwell for her question. For the members of the community who may not be aware, Ms Maxwell asked me a question about a specific case yesterday, and then through various iterations of that question and answer we established that it would be undesirable for a matter that is the subject of a current determination of the court, and which is subject to further consideration in relation to whether it is appealed, to form a precedent that may be used in other sentencing arrangements. I volunteered that in the circumstances I just described it would be undesirable and not appropriate for that current sentencing determination to be used as a precedent in those matters. That is the backstory to what has happened in the last 24 hours.
In relation to the specific wording of what you have read, I take it on face value that it is, but I have not reviewed the act. But I would assume that you are accurately reflecting on the guidelines that have been established in accordance with the act, so I am not going to disabuse you of that. I have not read them of recent times, but I take it at face value that they are consistent.
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:30): Given that answer, could the minister please explain how that position is possibly consistent with his own comments about precedent here yesterday, in response to, as discussed, the questioning about the Ristevski case. I quote:
… as a standard by which other cases would be assessed. I think that is extremely unlikely … This should not be used as a precedent. No case should be used as a precedent in relation to this matter.
Isn’t it clear that for as long as the principle of precedent continues to apply in Victorian courts this must mean that the sentencing decision in the Ristevski case does in fact set a precedent for comparable future cases?
Mr JENNINGS (South Eastern Metropolitan—Leader of the Government, Special Minister of State, Minister for Priority Precincts, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) (12:31): Ms Maxwell’s supplementary question was clearly written before my substantive answer to her question today. Because of the way in which you asked your substantive question today, I fully anticipated your concern, which is in relation to my comments yesterday in relation to precedent. I go back to what I said in my substantive answer. If you read my substantive answer to your question today, you will see that I actually outline that, given the circumstances of this current determination being subject to a consideration of whether it be appealed, it is extremely unlikely that at any immediate time in the future it may be used as a precedent, and that is the context in which I am responding to you now. I do not really want this to be an area of great concern between us. I actually understand your point of view very, very clearly from your questions in the chamber and your public commentary. I do not want to actually be construed to be saying something other than what I have been saying.