Click here to go back to issues list
Should mandatory sentencing be revoked in both the Northern Territory and Western Australia?
Echo Issue Outline 2000 / 09-10: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
'The offender becomes the victim of senseless retribution and the magistrate or judge is brutalised by being forced to act unjustly'
Former chief justice of the High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan
'Territorians, like most Australians, are sick and tired of the grubs who break into their homes, steal their cars and anything else that is not nailed down'
Former chief minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Shane Stone
On February 9, 2000, a 15-year-old Aboriginal boy died after attempting to hang himself in a Darwin youth detention centre. The youth had been imprisoned for thefts of paints, pencils, liquid paper and engine oil. The thefts were for materials with a total value of between $50 and $90.
The death led to calls for the Northern Territory to abandon its mandatory sentencing laws. These laws require magistrates to jail offenders as young as 15 for their second property offence. Western Australia has similar legislation.
Both jurisdictions have defended their legislation.
Background
The Northern Territory's Sentencing Amendment Act (No 2), 1996, has the following provisions:
* adult first offenders convicted of property crimes must serve at least 14 days
* a second offence carries a mandatory 90-day sentence
* and a third offence carries an automatic penalty of not less than one year.
* For juveniles (those aged between 15 and 16) there is no mandatory sentence for a first offence
* a second offence carries a mandatory 28 days in custody and
* a third offence is also to be punished by 28 days' incarceration.
Western Australia's law is narrower in its focus.
* The law applies to persons aged ten or older who commit home burglary.
* Where this is the third conviction for the same offence there is an automatic penalty of one-year imprisonment.
Mandatory sentencing is also a prominent feature of the United States' justice system.
Mandatory minimum sentences have been applied in United States federal courts and in many state courts since the 1970s. In 1994 the state of California introduced its 'three strikes' initiative. Under the provisions of this law California judges are required to give terms of twenty-five years to life for a third felony, no matter how trivial.
Critics have noted that third offences attracting 25 year sentences have included stealing a slice of pizza and small drug offences. Supporters note that the crime rate in the United States is falling.
Of general concern is the fact that the United States' prison bill has risen dramatically. It has been claimed that prison-related expenditure is beginning to overtake spending on education, health, road and infrastructure building in many states. The United States currently has a prison population of some two million. The prison population has doubled in the last ten years.
There is a number of Internet sites dealing with aspects of this issue.
The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) Internet site supplies a number of treatments of mandatory sentencing.
On December 13, 1999, the AIC issued a press release on a report the Institute had had produced on mandatory sentencing. The report is critical of mandatory sentencing and this is indicated in the press release. The release can be found at http://www.aic.gov.au/media/991213.html
An abstract or summary of the AIC report titled Mandatory Sentencing, written by Declan Roche, and published in December 1999, can be found at http://www.aic.gov.au/media/991213.html The full report can also be downloaded from this site.
The report apparently concludes that mandatory sentencing does not achieve its aims and that early intervention strategies would be more effective.
Graham Vimpani, Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health at the University of Newcastle, issued a press release on February 18, 2000, critical of mandatory sentencing. The release is titled Mandatory Sentencing of Young People - the next Stolen Generation?
The release can be read at http://www.newcastle.edu.au/cwis/pr/mr/vimpanimandsent.html
Arguments in favour of mandatory sentencing in Australia can be found on the Australian News Commentary site.
Australian News Commentary claims to be 'totally independent' and to seek to redress the leftist, politically-correct bias which, it says, typifies the Australian media. As evidence of this it cites, in particular, the supposedly prejudiced treatment One Nation received from the Australian media.
On March 1, 2000, Australian News Commentary published a comment titled, Mandatory sentencing furor - The usual suspects - the media, academics, judiciary and bleeding hearts.
The article claims, among other things, that mandatory sentencing was introduced because judges had failed to punish many offenders, including Aboriginal offenders, adequately.
The comment can be found at http://www.australian-news.com.au/index.html
The ABC's 7.30 Report has treated the mandatory sentencing controversy on a number of occasions.
On February 17, 2000, it televised a report titled, Mandatory sentencing controversy continues.
This can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s101250.htm
It deals with the debate which arose following the jailing for 12 months of a 21-year-old Aboriginal man for the theft of a packet of biscuits.
On February 23, 2000, the 7.30 Report televised a report titled NT Govt qualifies corruption comments after judge's threat.
This deals with the furor which emerged after the Northern Territory's Chief Minister and Attorney-General, Mr Denis Burke, described the Territory's justice system as 'corrupt'. Mr Burke was apparently implying that mandatory sentencing was necessary because sentences otherwise were too lenient and not delivered in the interests of the average law-abiding citizen.
The report can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s102765.htm
On February 24, 2000, the 7.30 Report televised a report titled Justice continues to divide Northern Territory
This deals with the continuing tension between the Northern Territory Government and the judiciary following Mr Burke's remarks.
The report can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s103127.htm
The Age has drawn together many of its treatments of the mandatory sentencing issue as part of its Issues 2000 subsite. These are listed in hypertext at http://www.theage.com.au/issues/mandatory/index.html
Alice Springs Youth Accommodation and Support Services (A.S.Y.A.S.S.) has collected a large number of Northern Territory media treatments of mandatory sentencing.
The articles come from The Centralian Advocate, The Northern Territory News, The Sunday Territorian and The Alice Springs News.
The list of titles, followed by the articles themselves, can be found at http://alice.topend.com.au:8090/~asyass/mandatry.htm#test
A.S.Y.A.S.S. began as a Youth Refuge for 12 - 24 year olds in 1990. It now offers other services including counselling and support services.
Pro and Con is a valuable United States public information site which presents substantial opinion drawn from both sides of many controversial issues.
Pro and Con's home page can be found at http://www.nonline.com/procon/
Pro and Con supplies an argument in favour of mandatory sentencing at http://www.nonline.com/procon/html/mandpro.html
The article is titled, Drug dealers need to be taken off the streets, people say
It is written by Maureen Boyle and was originally published in the New Standard-Times
It can be found at http://www.nonline.com/procon/html/mandpro.html
Pro and Con has also reproduced an article arguing against mandatory sentencing.
It is titled Disproportionate sentences for NY drug offenders. It was originally published in March, 1997, by Human Rights Watch.
It can be found at http://www.nonline.com/procon/html/mandcon.html
FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimum Sentencing) is a national organization of United States' citizens working to repeal federal and state mandatory sentencing laws that remove judicial discretion.
FAMM"s Internet site includes a history of mandatory sentencing in the United States and case studies of many people who have received such sentences.
The FAMM's site index can be found at http://www.famm.org/siteindx.htm
The Lindesmith Center in the United States supplies further information on mandatory sentences applied to drug offenders.
The Lindesmith Center is a policy research institute founded in 1994 that focuses on broadening the debate on drug policy and related issues. The center aims to act as a link between scholars, government and the media. The Center supports a harm reduction approach and is critical of policies that focus on prohibition and criminal penalties.
In March 1999 it published a detailed report originally published by The Correctional Association of New York. The report is titled Mandatory Sentencing Laws and Drug Offenders in New York State.
It details the effects of the laws, the criminal histories and racial composition of the offenders concerned and then suggests a series of what it claims would be 'cost-effective' alternatives.
The report can be found at http://www.lindesmith.org/library/rock3.html#top
Another United States site supplying information on sentencing issues is the Sentencing Project Website. The site's aim is to provide resources and information for the news media and the general public. This site, too, is critical of current United States sentencing laws.
The site's home page can be found at http://www.sentencingproject.org/
The site's fact sheet and policy statements have material relevant to and critical of mandatory sentencing.
Arguments against mandatory sentencing
There are five main arguments offered against mandatory sentencing.
Firstly, it is claimed, mandatory sentencing removes judicial discretion.
According to this line of argument, a judge or magistrate should be able to consider each case brought before him or her on its merits.
Those who hold this view argue that the judiciary is made up of skilled and experienced men and women whose powers of judgement are important to appropriate sentencing. It has been claimed that judges should be able to allow for any special circumstances applying in a particular case brought before them.
The current Victorian Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, who worked for five years as a solicitor at an Aboriginal Legal Service in far north Queensland has written, in an article published in The Age on 16 February, 2000, 'Mandatory laws are ... a vote of no confidence in the judiciary.
The loss of this judicial discretion has rendered the justice system incapable of adequately dealing with a vast range of minor crimes.
For example, there is no judicial discretion to take into consideration severe social breakdown. This has occurred in parts of the NT where children as young as four are effected by the petrol-sniffing epidemic.'
Relatedly, it has been claimed that the mandatory sentencing laws mean that the judge cannot take into consideration the value of property stolen.
Shortly after the death in detention of a 15 year-old Aboriginal youth, a 21-year-old Aboriginal man was sentenced to 12 months jail for stealing $23 worth of biscuits. The man received this sentence because it was his third offence against property.
This 12 month sentence imposed for such a minor offence has led to further wide-spread criticism of mandatory sentences.
A former chief justice of the High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan, has summed up the importance of judicial discretion. Sir Gerard has stated, 'The punishment must fit both the crime and the criminal.'
Secondly, it is argued, mandatory sentencing discriminates against Aboriginals.
Those who claim that mandatory sentencing discriminates against Aboriginal Australians note that Aboriginals already make up more than 70 per cent of Northern Territory incarcerations.
A recent study has apparently indicated that Aboriginal children made up about 80 per cent of cases brought under Western Australia's mandatory sentencing laws.
In the Northern Territory, Groote Eylandt, the home of the Aboriginal boy who died, has seen a 12 per cent increase in the number of Aboriginal juvenile offenders in detention.
The number of Aborigines held in Northern Territory prisons is said to have increased by 22 per cent since the Territory introduced mandatory jail terms for repeat offenders. Similarly, it has been reported that Western Australia's rate of incarceration for Aborigines rose by 20 per cent after mandatory sentencing was introduced.
It is claimed that the link between property offences, unemployment and poverty discriminates against Aborigines as they are disproportionately represented among the unemployed. Therefore, it is suggested, Aboriginal Australians are particularly likely to commit crimes against property.
It has further been claimed that the Northern Territory's mandatory sentencing law's narrow focus on crimes against property means that those who commit other crimes are treated more leniently.
It has also been claimed that given the high incidence of suicide among Aboriginals in custody it is particularly inappropriate that Aboriginal offenders be incarcerated for relatively trivial offences.
The Royal Commission into Black Deaths in Custody actually recommended that efforts be made to reduce the incarceration rate among Aboriginal Australians. Critics note that the effect of mandatory sentencing legislation is to increase this incarceration rate.
Thirdly, it is claimed mandatory sentencing discriminates against juveniles. Those who hold this view argue that an automatic term in a prison or a detention centre is not an appropriate form of punishment for youths who commit property offences.
According to this line of argument, juvenile offenders are particularly likely to be damaged by a period of incarceration and to return to the community with an increased likelihood of committing an offence.
It has been suggested that proactive programs which address the causes of crime among Aboriginal youth are likely to be more effective than automatic incarceration for property offences.
Fourthly, it is claimed, mandatory sentencing is ineffective and extremely expensive.
In terms of the supposed ineffectiveness of mandatory sentencing, it has been claimed that since the introduction of mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory, there has been no decrease in crimes against property.
Referring to Groote Eylandt, magistrate, Mr Greg Cavanagh, has stated, 'You must wonder about the value of jail as a deterrent on this island.'
Mr Cavanagh was referring directly to the case of the 21-year-old man who stole the biscuits. The offender had, apparently, been out of jail for only a few weeks when he committed the crime.
An analysis written by Colleen Egan and Monica Videnieks and published in The Australian on February 19, 2000, states, 'The Northern Territory and Western Australia ... have the highest crime rates in the country.' The same report also states, '... in Western Australia, where the sentencing law has been operating under close scrutiny since November 1996, research has shown mandatory sentencing is not reducing crime.'
It has also been noted that incarcerating this man for 12 months will cost the Australian taxpayer a disproportionate amount of money.
A North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service spokesperson, Mr John Sheldon, has questioned the cost-effectiveness of such punishment.
Mr Sheldon has stated, 'This simple offence of stealing a packet of biscuits will now cost Australian taxpayers $150,000...'
Fifthly it has been argued that mandatory sentencing laws place Australia in contravention of a number of international conventions to which we are signatories.
One of these is the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which has rules against arbitrary imprisonment.
It has been argued that when the same offence can be punished differently depending on the offender's previous criminal record then the punishment is arbitrary and so is in breach of this convention.
Mr John Sheldon has argued, 'Clearly this is arbitrary, that one person got 90 days and another got one year.'
It has also been suggested that mandatory sentencing may place Australia in breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
A spokesperson for the Attorney's-General Department has expressed concern about the 'disproportionately high percentage of Aboriginal children in the juvenile justice system'.
The same person also stated that this posed a particular problem 'in the light of the principle and provisions of the Convention [on the Rights of the Child] and other standards.'
Arguments in favour of mandatory sentencing
There are five main arguments offered in favour of mandatory sentencing.
Firstly, it has been argued that under mandatory sentencing exists there is still scope for discretion or judgement and that where judicial discretion has been removed this has been appropriate.
Under the law as it exists in the Northern Territory, it has been argued, there is provision made for 'trivial offences'. It has been claimed that these can be punished by either a bond or a suspended sentence. The possibility of a bond or a suspended sentence has been claimed to allow for some discretion in sentencing.
This point has been made by Shane Stone, a former chief minister of the Northern Territory and the architect of the Territory's mandatory sentencing legislation.
It is also claimed that where mandatory sentencing applies discretion resides with the prosecutor rather than the judge or magistrate.
It is claimed that the prosecutor can use discretion when deciding whether to proceed with a case which could attract a mandatory sentence. It would appear, according to this line of argument, that where an offence was considered particularly trivial yet, under the provisions of mandatory sentencing, could attract a significant penalty, the prosecutor may decide not to go ahead with the case.
On the question of judicial discretion, there are those who claim that the undue leniency that some judges have previously displayed has damaged community confidence in the judiciary.
Mr Stone has stated, 'Judges and magistrates decry the fact that they have lost their sentencing discretion - no wonder given some of the sentences handed out.'
This point was also made in a letter published in The Herald Sun on March 13, 2000.
The letter written by D. Searle, states, It has been demonstrated many times in Victoria over the last five years that judges take into consideration too many mitigating circumstances when evaluating the sentences they pass ...
As a community it is time we started making our politicians aware that the current process of sentencing criminals does not reflect our expectations.'
Mr Stone has also noted that in other Australian states there are other classes of crime where judicial discretion in sentencing has been removed and there has been no public outcry.
Mr Stone has stated, 'In many jurisdictions mandatory penalties have long applied, for example in drink-driving cases - no fuss or bother there.'
Secondly, and relatedly, it has been claimed that, in circumstance where charges are brought against someone who could receive a mandatory sentence, it is usual for the crime to involve more than the central offence against property.
Mr Stone has made this point in relation to a young Aboriginal woman who has been reported as having stolen a can of beer and then receiving a 14 day penalty for that offence.
Mr Stone has stated, 'What the media don't tell you are the attendant circumstances, including the break and enter and the damage done to the premises before the offender was disturbed, resulting in her fleeing the scene with a single can of beer.'
Thirdly, it has been claimed that community concern over the plight of offenders is inappropriate as it ignores the victims of the crimes.
Mr Stone has written, 'Territorians, like most Australians, are sick and tired of the grubs who break into their homes, steal their cars and anything else that is not nailed down.'
Mr Stone has further stated, 'Some commentators need a reality check and a better understanding of the community's expectations of the criminal justice system - particularly the victims' ... Victims are entitled to be heard first and foremost.'
According to this line of argument, the primary function of the law, especially as far as the general community is concerned, is to protect the innocent victims of crime, not those who have committed crimes.
Thirdly, defenders of mandatory sentences claim that the scheme is intended to deter and to punish.
Mr Stone has stated, 'Yes, the legislation is harsh - it is designed to punish and deter.'
Mr Stone has further claimed, 'No fair-minded Australian enjoys seeing people incarcerated but enough is enough - particularly when it comes to repeat offenders who don't get the message.'
According to this line of argument, if the legislation is to be effective in reducing the number of crimes against property, potential offenders need to know that if caught and found guilty they will definitely receive a significant punishment. The severity of the punishment and the certainty of its application are seen as major deterrents.
To those who argue that mandatory sentencing has not proved an effective deterrent, it defenders claim that the alternative was less successful.
This point has been made by Shane Stone, who has argued, '... all I can say is that ... [the] approach of offender first and victim second has been an abject failure.'
Fourthly, it has been argued that mandatory sentencing does not discriminate against either Aboriginal Australians or juveniles.
On the question of treating Aboriginal Australians appropriately, Mr Stone has argued that the Northern Territories mandatory sentencing laws apply equally to all those who commit property offences and then repeat such offences.
Mr Stone has stated, '... the Northern Territory legislation doesn't discriminate between black and white - break into somebody's home, steal their car or vandalise the local school and you will go to jail regardless of colour.'
Mr Stone is critical of proposals that Aboriginal Australians be punished under Aboriginal law. Mr Stone argues that, unlike the Northern Territory's mandatory sentencing legislation, such a proposal genuinely is discriminatory, as it would allow one set of Australians to be punished differently from another. He suggests that if this were accepted other ethnic minorities might well seek to be punished according to the laws of their country or origin or family culture. Mr Stone asks, 'Who is next for their own legal system - the Vietnamese, the Muslim community or perhaps the Serbs?'
Regarding concerns that Aboriginal Australians are more likely to take their own lives when sentenced to prison, Mr Stone argues that this is not the fault of the system which incarcerated them. Instead, he suggests, such suicidal impulses probably come from the total social and familial situation in which Aboriginal youth are placed.
Mr Stone has argued, 'It is a quantum leap to claim that mandatory sentencing causes youth suicide. Such statements demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of how dysfunctional some Aboriginal families have become.'
The same point has been made by Herald Sun commentator, Andrew Bolt, who has argued that Aboriginal youths will 'grow up in despair and die' whether in jail or out until 'this bleeding tragedy of broken homes, drunken fathers, beaten women [and] neglected children ...' is addressed.
On the question of discrimination against youth, Mr Stone has argued that mandatory sentencing does not apply to children, but to young people fifteen and over. He further notes that special provisions are made for offenders aged 15 and 16. There is he notes no mandatory sentence imposed on young offenders found guilty of their first crime, while for a second and third offence their penalty on each occasion is only 28 days incarceration. This, it is claimed, is far more lenient than the treatment received by those aged 17 and over, who are incarcerated for 14 days for their first offence and for 90 days and one year for their second and third offences.
Fifthly, and finally, on the question of Australia's adherence to international conventions, defenders of mandatory sentencing claim that this is a states' issue, not one which should be determined according to undertakings made by the federal government.
It has further been argued that in those states where mandatory sentencing applies it has the overwhelming support of the voters.
Mr Stone has claimed, 'The [mandatory sentencing] law was "front and centre" in my 1997 election campaign. The Stone government was returned with a crushing 18-7 majority - ... [this] is called democracy.'
Similarly, the Herald Sun in its editorial of February 23, 2000, argued that Australia, as a 'robust democracy' should be left to handle 'its own affairs without having the UN (United Nations) tell us what to do'.
Further implications
The Howard government has refused to allow a conscience vote on whether it should use its external powers to overturn mandatory sentencing laws in the Northern Territory.
The Prime Minister apparently allowed full debate on the issue within the party room, however, he made it clear that he was personally opposed to the private members bill which sought to overturn mandatory sentencing. Coalition representatives who supported the bill were left to conclude that if they crossed the floor to vote with those supporting the bill they would breach party solidarity. This, it has been suggested, would have marked the end of their chances of advancing within the party.
Thus, in the short-term, mandatory sentencing will not be overturned in the Northern Territory. It would be even more difficult practically and politically for the federal government to interfere in the affairs of a state such as Western Australia.
In both Western Australia and the Northern Territory mandatory sentencing has large support among the electorate. The issue is likely to remain an active one, but only because apparent abuses of justice attributable to these laws are likely to continue to attract media attention.
Should there be further deaths among Aboriginal Australians serving mandatory sentences then the debate is likely to be come even more heated. In the short to medium term, however, the government appears to believe that mandatory sentencing should remain a state and territory concern.
Sources
The Age
11/2/00 page 1 news item by Dennis Schulz, 'Outcry as boy dies in Darwin jail'
12/2/00 page 1 news item by Dennis Schulz, 'Johnno: a life and death of misery'
14/2/00 page 1 news item by Janine MacDonald, 'Tears, anger as Canberra is urged to quash NT law'
14/2/00 page 14 editorial, 'A day of shame for Australia'
15/2/00 page 8 news item by Janine MacDonald, 'Liberal MPs to urge veto of NT laws'
15/2/00 page 8 news item by Melissa Marino, 'Inquiry gets support for abolition'
15/2/00 page 8 analysis by Dennis Schulz, 'How mandatory terms evolved'
15/2/00 page 8 list, 'Eight cases of mandatory jail'
15/2/00 page 15 comment by Meg Mundell, 'Expensive justice at four cents a day'
16/2/00 page 6 news item by Janine MacDonald, 'Howard loath to mess with WA and NT laws'
16/2/00 page 15 comment by Rob Hulls, 'Racist, unjust and we all share the shame'
17/2/00 page 1 news item by Janine MacDonald, 'Jail for stealing biscuits'
17/2/00 page 6 news item by Catherine Munro, 'Man jailed for stealing $23 worth of biscuits'
17/2/00 page 6 comment by Sir Gerard Brennan, 'Sir Gerard's statement'
17/2/00 page 13 analysis by Mark Riley, 'Three strikes and you're in: can America right a law gone wrong?'
23/2/00 page 14 letter from Peter Farrow, 'Why NT opted for sentencing laws'
19/3/00 page 6 news item by Chips MacKinolty, 'Sentences that shamed a nation'
19/3/00 page 6 news item by Brendan Nicholson, 'How the PM nobbled the bill'
19/3/00 page 7 news item by Chips MacKinolty, 'NT youth possibly a "sniffer"'
The Australian
12/2//00 page 4 news item by Bernard Lane, 'Federal override proposed'
12/2/00 page 18 editorial, 'Howard must step in on territory law'
15/2/00 page 1 news item by Benjamin Haslem et al, 'Mandatory laws draw federal fire'
15/2/00 page 12 letters under general heading, 'Shame of Johnno's death haunts us all'
16/2/00 page 2 news item by Richard McGregor, 'Libs split on sentencing laws'
16/2/00 page 2 news item by Paul Toohey, 'Broken window, shattered life'
16/2/00 page 2 a list of penalties applied for property offences in states other than the Northern Territory, 'Equal justice?'
16/2/00 page 2 news item by Colleen Egan, 'Labor's tough stand'
16/2/00 page 12 editorial, 'Human rights not property at issue'
16/2/00 page 13 comment by William Jonas, 'Mandatory training in crime and despair'
17/2/00 page 1 news item by Paul Toohey, 'Anger at NT jailings'
17/2/00 page 1 comment by Richard McGregor, 'Sentenced to a nasty party split'
17/2/00 page 10 cartoon by Nicholson
17//2/00 page 11 comment by Shane Stone, 'Victims, not offenders, deserve a break'
19/2/00 page 23 analysis by Colleen Egan & Monica Videnieks, 'Mandate from hell'
19/2/00 page 23 analysis by Robert Lusetich, 'US loves its bars and stripes'
19/2/00 page 32 comment by Dennis Shanahan, 'Embrace our mandatory duty to care'
The Herald Sun
11/2/00 page 20 comment by Jill Singer, 'It doesn't make sense to keep filling our jails'
11/2/00 page 27 news item by John Loizou, 'Orphan thief, 15, hangs in NT jail'
17/2/00 page 9 news item, 'Jail for biscuit theft'
20/2/00 page 6 comment by Don Chipp, 'Betraying our just traditions'
21/2/00 page 18 comment by Andrew Bolt, 'The full story behind the death of that Aboriginal boy'
23/2/00 page 18 editorial, 'UN must keep out'
24/2/00 page 11 news item by Mark Ludlow, 'Herron defends laws'
24/2/00 page 18 comment by Andrew Bolt, 'A disgrace we dance around'
19/2/00 page 9 news item by Andrew Probyn & Mark Ludlow, 'Bid to restore Aboriginal law'
12/3/00 page 38 editorial, 'Three faces of justice'
13/3/00 page 17 letter from D. Searle, 'Public unrest at sentencing'