Statutory and judicial guidelines

Sentencing = deciding guilt

Punishment = physical consequence for crime

Society expect that guilty people should be punished so the way in which the offender is punished reflects societal morals to a large degree
Media is quick to express inadequacies of sentences/punishments e.g. R v Loveridge (2013) – example of reflection of moral and ethical standards
Sentencing hearing: Heard in the District and Supreme Court – depending on where they were first heard
The prosecution and defence are able to make submissions (put forward an argument to what they believe the sentence should be, often use precedent cases)

Statutory:

Using statutes or legislation to sentence an offender
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Sets out the maximum penalties determined by parliament that cannot be exceeded
Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Act 2011 (NSW)
- The mandatory sentence for murdering a police officer is life imprisonment with no judicial discretion or mitigating factors
Media article – “is a policeman’s life worth more”? Sydney Morning Herald 2011
Crimes and Other Amendment (Assault and Intoxication) Act 2014 (NSW)
- This introduced the mandatory minimum sentence – for assault causing death of minimum 8 years
- This was introduced as a result of the R v Loveridge (2013), where Loveridge punched Thomas Kelly causing his death and his sentence was seen as inadequate
The DPP wanted to appeal that the initial sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly inadequate and on the grounds of the media outcry
His sentence was then increased, introducing this Act
The case of R v Garth (2017) was the first to use the first mandatory sentence – the judge had to imprison him for a minimum for 8 years

Judicial: