Should judges have less discretion in determining the sentences they impose?

Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

Sections in this issue outline (in order)
1 What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.

Dictionary
To activate the in-built dictionary linked to this issue outline, double-click on any word in the body of the text (IE only).

Analysis help
Students and others can read a guide to analysing the language of the news media by clicking the graphic at right.

Age and Australian items
To list all Echo-indexed items on this topic for 2002, click the graphic at right

Sydney Morning Herald items
To list items indexed by the NSW State Library's Infoquick, click the graphic at right

Should judges have less discretion in determining the sentences they impose?

What they said .
`Unless judges are able to mould the sentence to the circumstances of the individual case then, irrespective of how much legislative forethought has gone into the determination of a particular regime, there will always be the prospect of injustice'
The Honourable James Spigelman, Chief Justice of New South Wales

`There is no ideal level of sentencing. Sentencing levels are culturally determined, reflecting the needs and desires of the community within which they are imposed'
Professor Arie Freiberg, Professor of Criminology, University of Melbourne, author of the Victorian Sentencing Review released in March 2002

The issue at a glance
In March, 2002, the Victorian Government released Sentencing Review 2001, a study of Victoria's sentencing practices it had had conducted by Professor Arie Freiberg, Professor of Criminology at Melbourne University. The review was completed in August 2001. The Government appeared to have been considering the review's recommendations for some six months.
In response to the review, the Victorian Government is to introduce guideline judgements. These are appeal court judgements that set out general sentencing levels for different classes and types of offence.
The purpose of guideline judgements is to promote consistency in sentencing and to increase public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The Victorian Government is also to establish a Sentencing Advisory Council. This is to be made up of police, crime victims, lawyers, correctional authorities, social service representatives and academics. One of the roles of the council would be to gauge public opinion on sentencing.
The Victorian Court of Appeal and the Magistrates Court are strongly opposed to the proposals. The High Court has also expressed reservations about guideline judgements, claiming they are a threat to judicial discretion.
Groups such as the Crime Victims Support Association do not think the Victorian proposals go far enough. They are seeking mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences.

Background
The Victorian initiative is but the most recent in an increasing range of measures apparently designed to monitor sentences and reduce judicial discretion. New South Wales has been at the forefront of such initiatives.

Measures taken to monitor or limit judicial discretion
1. The Judicial Commission of New South Wales was established by Act of Parliament in 1986. The Commission has eight members. Six are the heads of the New South Wales Courts. The president is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. One of the roles of the Commission is to monitor criminal sentencing. It is also responsible for judicial education. Judicial education is intended to ensure that judges are informed of changes in the law and that they are aware of community attitudes in a range of areas, including toward sentencing. The Commission also hears complaints against judges.
2. Truth in Sentencing, an initiative that requires judges to set a minimum prison term that must be served before a convicted criminal is eligible for parole was introduced in New South Wales in 1989. Victoria introduced the measure in 1991. (Though this relates more particularly to the operation of the penal system and parole boards than it does to the courts, it appears to have grown out of dissatisfaction with the length of sentences being served.)
3. The New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal adopted guideline judgements for certain types of offences in 1998. Guideline judgments are decisions handed down by appeal courts setting out the principles of sentencing and the range of penalties that may be applied to a given offence.
4. In 1996 the Northern Territory introduced mandatory sentences under its Sentencing Amendment Act (No 2). This set fixed terms for property offences, increasing in severity with each offence, though the Labor Government elected in the Northern Territory in 2001 appears to have largely removed mandatory sentencing provisions.
In New South Wales, the Crime Amendment (Mandatory Life Sentences) Act 1996 provides for mandatory life sentences in certain cases for murder and for trafficking in commercial quantities of heroin or cocaine.
Mandatory sentencing continues to operate in Western Australia and remains on the political agenda in a number of other states, notably in New South Wales where the Opposition want its scope extended.
Mandatory minimum sentences are minimum sentences prescribed for a particular offence. The minimum sentence may be determined by the offender's criminal record, as well as by the offence. Judges must sentence between the minimum and maximum penalties.

Sentencing guidelines currently operating in Victoria
Under the Victorian Sentencing Act 1991 guidelines are established to determine the sentence imposed on a convicted criminal.
Under these guidelines judges are meant to impose sentences that balance five considerations - punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and the protection of the community.
The Act states `The only purposes for which sentences may be imposed are-
(a) to punish the offender to an extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances; or
(b) to deter the offender or other persons from committing offences of the same or a similar character; or
(c) to establish conditions within which it is considered by the court that the rehabilitation of the offender may be facilitated; or
(d) to manifest the denunciation by the court of the type of conduct in which the offender engaged; or
(e) to protect the community from the offender; or
(f) a combination of two or more of those purposes.

The Sentencing Act also requires that in sentencing an offender a court must have regard to -
(a) the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence; and
(b) current sentencing practices; and
(c) the nature and gravity of the offence; and
(d) the offender's culpability and degree of responsibility for the offence; and
(e) the personal circumstances of any victim of the offence; and
(f) any injury, loss or damage resulting directly from the offence; and
(g) whether the offender pleaded guilty to the offence and, if so, the stage in the proceedings at which the offender did so or indicated an intention to do so; and
(h) the offender's previous character; and
(i) the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factor concerning the offender or of any other relevant circumstances.

Judges are thus meant to consider the character of the offender when passing sentence. The Sentencing Act 1991 requires that judges take into account
(a) the number, seriousness, date, relevance and nature of any previous findings of guilt or convictions of the offender; and
(b) the general reputation of the offender; and
(c) any significant contributions made by the offender to the community.
Judges are also required to take into consideration indications of remorse on the part of the offender.

Internet Information
The public issues site Public Debate has a brief consideration of each side of the question `Sentencing: are the sentences being handed down appropriate?'
This discussion can be found at http://www.publicdebate.com.au/php/issue/getbg.php?issue_number=79

The Public Debate site has a similar consideration of the question `Truth in sentencing: should it be introduced Australia-wide?'
This discussion can be found at http://www.publicdebate.com.au/php/issue/getbg.php?issue_number=822

In 1998 the Australian Institute of Criminology released a report titled `Australian Crime: facts and figures'
This report supplied Australia-wide statistics on types of crime, incidence of crimes, rates of increase, and an age breakdown of victims and perpetrators for the five-year period from 1993 to 1997.
It is a valuable instrument against which to check popular perceptions and media claims about the nature of crime in Australia.
Please note that the report is published as a pdf file and requires Adobe Acrobat Reader in order to be read.
The report can be found at http://192.190.66.33/publications/facts/1998/facts.pdf

In 2000 the Commonwealth funded National Crime Prevention Programme published `Crime in Australia: a state-by-state comparison'. This brochure draws on information from Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Productivity Commission. Though far less detailed than the 1998 Institute of Criminology report it supplies figures up to 1999.
The then Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Amanda Vanstone, remarked in the forward to the brochure, `Many Australians are concerned about crime and its impact on their lives. Our fear of crime, even if it is not realistic, can lead us to modify our behaviour to avoid real and imagined risks.'
Please note that the brochure is published as a pdf file and requires Adobe Acrobat Reader in order to be read.
The brochure can be found at http://www.ncavac.gov.au/ncp/publications/pdf/Crime.pdf

In 1987 the Australian Institute of Criminology released a report titled `How the public sees sentencing: an Australian survey'. Over 2000 randomly selected respondents were surveyed in detail on what sentences they believed appropriate for a range of crimes. There was surprising agreement with what was the then judicial norm in sentencing for these offences. It would be interesting to know if this degree of correspondence would occur today.
Please note that the report is published as a pdf file and requires Adobe Acrobat Reader in order to be read.
The report can be found at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti04.pdf

In 1998 a briefing paper was produced for the New South Wales Parliament titled, `Mandatory and Guideline Sentencing: Recent Developments.'
The executive summary of this paper gives an overview of the situation in New South Wales and other Australian states and territories as well as supplying clear definitions of `mandatory minimum sentences', `presumptive sentencing guidelines' and `guideline judgements'.
The summary can be found at http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/web/PHWebContent.nsf/PHPages/ResearchBf181998?OpenDocument

In November 2001, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research published a report in the Crime and Justice Bulletin titled, `Trends in sentencing in the
New South Wales Criminal Courts: 1990 - 2000'
The report indicates that `Since 1990, the rate of imprisonment in NSW has risen from 86 inmates per 100,000 population to 113, an increase of 31 per cent.' It gives sentencing details on a range of crimes over the ten year period.
Please note that the report is published as a pdf file and requires Adobe Acrobat Reader in order to be read.
The report can be found at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/bocsar1.nsf/files/CJB62.pdf/$FILE/CJB62.pdf

On September 4, 2001, The Age published a comment from Melbourne QC and former leader of the Victorian Labor Party, Jim Kennan. The comment is titled, `Why getting tough on crime is going nowhere'. It presents an overview of sentencing trends around Australia and argues that increased prison terms are no solution to crime.
The article can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/news/state/2001/09/04/FFXADVF55RC.html

On October 28 2000 the Chief Justice of New South Wales James Spigelman gave an address to the University of New South Wales Symposium titled, `Mandatory sentencing - rights and wrongs'
The address gives a valuable overview of the issue, defending judicial discretion and suggesting how it might be informed and consistency maintained. The address also argues for the importance of keeping the community educated about the reality of sentencing.
The full text of the address can be found at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/sc/sc.nsf/pages/cj_281000

On October 12 1998 the Chief Justice of New South Wales James Spigelman made a public statement essentially supporting the introduction of guideline judgements in New South Wales. This statement can be found at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/sc/sc.nsf/pages/spigelman_121098

The Victorian Sentencing Act 1991 can be found at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/sa1991121/s5.html
The Act outlines the factors that a judge is required to consider when passing sentence.

Professor Arie Freiberg's Victorian Sentencing Review 2001 is a detailed consideration of a number of aspects of sentencing in Victoria. It makes a number of recommendations including the development of guideline judgements and the establishment of a Sentencing Advisory Council as already operates in New South Wales.
The recommendations and the discussion accompanying them are very informative. Please note, however, that the review is 136 pages in length. Most readers should find the information the need in the far shorter executive summary with which the review opens.
Please also note that the review is published as a pdf file and requires Adobe Acrobat Reader in order to be read.
The review can be found at http://www.crimbarvic.org.au/Sentencing%20Review%20Discussion%20Paper.pdf

Arguments in favour of judges having less discretion in the sentences they impose
1. Judges are believed to be out of touch with community standards
This point was made in a Herald Sun editorial published on March 21, 2002. The editorial supported the introduction of guideline judgements and the establishment of a Sentencing Advisory Council. Such a council would include judiciary, lawyers, legal aid bodies, victims, police, corrections and social service organisations as well as academics.
The editorial argues that these reforms are necessary `to restore public confidence in a justice system which at times has seemed out of touch with community standards'.
A similar point was made in an Age editorial published on April 5, 2001. The editorial states, `When there is a gap between the law and community sentiment, the justice system's credibility is undermined.'

2. Many sentences are too believed to be too lenient
This sentiment has been voiced by many victims of crime (and their relatives) who consider that sentences have not matched in severity the crimes for which they were imposed.
One such group of relatives is the family of an elderly woman killed in 2000 by two youths who broke into her house and assaulted and robbed her. The young men were sentenced to serve a minimum sentence of four years and with time already spent in detention could be released within two and a half years. This sentence sparked community outrage and greatly distressed the family of the murdered woman. The family sent an open letter to the Premier, Mr Bracks, declaring `Please listen to the community - don't tell us it isn't your job, Mr Bracks. We are sick and tired of lenient sentences for violent criminals.'

3. Sentences are believed to be inconsistent
Judgement guidelines have recently been established in New South Wales. In explaining why this measure had been taken, the Chief Justice of New South Wales, the Honourable James Spigelman stated that one of the main purposes of the guidelines was to ensure that sentences were consistent.
The Chief Justice stated, `It does not appear that the normal course of appeals against sentences has been able to satisfy significant sections of the community that consistency in sentencing does occur. The system of guideline judgments is designed to promote such consistency and to confirm public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.'
The Australian sentencing regime has frequently been criticised as being inconsistent. One such critic is Mirko Bagaric in an article published in The California Criminal Law Review in 2001.
Mr Bagaric states, `Due to the enormous number and range of aggravating and mitigating circumstances . held to be relevant to sentencing, judges in Australia . generally enjoy wide discretion in imposing punishment in any particular case. This has resulted in a large . disparity in sentencing.
The rule of law virtues of consistency and fairness have been trumped by the idiosyncratic intuitions of sentencers, and . accordingly there is a need to [reduce] . sentencing discretion.
The unprincipled nature of sentencing practice has led to . a "cafeteria system" of sentencing, which permits sentencers to pick and choose with little constraint a rationale that seems appropriate at the time.'

4. Current sentencing practice appears to discriminate in favour of the criminal
It has been claimed that many judges give undue emphasis to prisoner rehabilitation when passing sentence. It is claimed that this leads them to issue inadequate sentences. Mr Steve Medcarft, a spokesperson for People Against Lenient Sentencing has stated, `There is an epidemic in children's courts where judges are refusing to address punishment and looking only at rehabilitation as an answer.'
A number of prominent cases have lent support to those who criticise judges for discriminating in favour of the offender. One such case was a robbery and fatal assault committed against a 73-year-old woman in Victoria in October 2000. The two youths involved were originally sentenced to a maximum of four years jail. The Supreme Court Justice in passing sentence declared, `The principal consideration to be taken into account in fixing a sentence is your youth and your prospects of rehabilitation. I must consider these above questions of deterrence.'
Some critics also object to provisions such as those of the Victorian Sentencing Act that require judges to issue non-custodial sentences where they believe the objectives of the Act can be meet by a non-custodial sentence.
Victoria's Chief Justice, John Phillips, has cited the following provision of the Act, `A court must not impose a sentence that involves the confinement of the offender unless it considers that the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed cannot be achieved by a sentence that does not involve the confinement of the offender.'
Critics claim that this bias toward non-custodial sentences discriminates in favour of the criminal.

5. The plight of the victim does not receive adequate consideration in sentencing
It has been suggested that despite Victim Impact Statements courts do not pay adequate attention to the suffering of victims when passing sentences.
The family of the 73-year-old woman murdered in Victoria in October 2000 has made this point.
As a result of the woman's death her intellectually disabled son, Peter, will be left without a caregiver and will have to go into institutionalised care. One of the members of the family has claimed, `Those boys [the woman's killers] still have parents and a home to return to when they get out. Peter doesn't.'
The woman's daughter has stated, `It makes us angry that there is so much support and consideration for those two boys, who sexually assaulted and violated her. Who feels sorry for the victim?'
In an open letter to the Victorian premier, the murdered woman's family declared, `'We are asking you to appeal the sentence given to the two boys who killed our mother, grandmother and great grandmother . [Her] great grandchildren . will never experience the joy of knowing such an intelligent, loving and strong woman. We will never understand why she died such a violent death . It's not just about [our case]. It's about victims of crime now and those yet to come.'

Arguments against judges having less discretion in the sentences they impose
1. When the public is aware of the full range of sentencing considerations it tends to support judges' sentences
In 1987 The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) conducted a detailed survey on what sentences a representative group of Australians would impose for a range of crimes. 2551 members of the Australian public were randomly selected. They were asked to impose sentences in a range of hypothetical cases, ranging from someone convicted of a stabbing homicide to an employer whose negligence contributed to an industrial accident in which a worker lost his leg.
The average response showed broad agreement with typical court decisions including a tendency to punish violent offenders by way of prison sentences and to punish property offenders with non-custodial penalties, particularly fines.
It has been claimed that results such as these indicate that when the public is given detailed information on sentencing principles and the circumstances surrounding a crime they are more likely to be in agreement with sentences handed down by judges and magistrates.
The AIC's report suggested `Media polls often trivialise and sensationalise public opinion on criminal justice matters and this is very clearly seen directly after a horrendous crime .'

2. Judges are a skilled and experienced group whose discretion must be protected
Those who stress the importance of judicial discretion normally argue that sentencing is a skilled process that requires knowledge and experience.
Terry O'Gorman, the president of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties, has stated, `Sentencing is a difficult exercise because judges have to take into account detailed submissions, other sentences given in similar cases and a whole set of facts the public would not know about.'
The importance of judges being able to exercise their discretion has also been made by Victoria's Chief Justice, John Harber Philllips, AC. The Chief Justice has stated, `Sentencing requires more than the finding of facts. Sentencing law derives from Statutes of Parliament or the common law must be applied. So legal and judicial experience is necessary.'
New South Wales Chief Justice, Honourable James Spigelman, has explained this position in detail. In an address considering mandatory sentencing, the Chief Justice stated, `Practical experience over centuries has led to the conclusion that this difficult process of weighing and balancing all of the relevant considerations is best done by an independent, impartial, experienced, professional judge . The existence of sentencing discretion is an essential component of the fairness of our criminal justice system.'

3. Popular perceptions about the leniency of sentences are inaccurate
The popular belief that judges are passing increasingly more lenient sentences is wrong. The reality appears to be that over the last ten years prison sentences and, therefore, the number of people in prison have increased.
This appears to have been the result of changes in sentencing laws. However, critics of attempts to remove judicial discretion in sentencing argue that if the aim of such measures is to increase sentences, then this is not necessary as sentences are already at an historic high.
Melbourne QC Jim Kennan, a former leader of the Victoria Labor Party, made the following observations in September 2001. `Victoria's prison population has grown by 50 per cent since 1991. The pattern is the same in the rest of Australia, with Australia's incarceration rate having overtaken European rates and lagging only behind those in the United States, Russia, the Caribbean countries and South Africa.
The reasons for this alarming growth . are found in legislative changes increasing sentences and in the greater emphasis by courts on punishment rather than rehabilitation.'
The same point has been made in the Victorian Sentencing Review 2001 completed by Professor Arie Freiberg in August 2001. The review states, `Over the last decade or so, Victoria's total prison population has increased by 50%, from 2,250 in 1992 to 3,380 in May 2001. Some of this is due to an increase in remand prisoners, some to the fact that more offenders have been sentenced to imprisonment and some to the fact that prison sentences are longer both in terms of sentences imposed and time actually served in custody.'

4. Attempts are already made to help ensure consistency
If there is dissatisfaction with a sentence on any grounds, including inconsistency, an appeal can be made to the Court of Appeal. Either the Director of Public prosecutions or the offender's legal advisers can lodge this appeal. The appeal can be made on the grounds either that a particular sentence is to lenient or too severe. If it believes the complaint is valid, the Court of Appeal can impose a different sentence.
All sentences involve a balancing of respect for the unique qualities of the case being tried against a regard for sentences that have been given in previous, similar cases. There are now electronic databases and communications systems available which make it easier for judges to be aware of sentences that have been applied in similar cases.
Electronic Judicial Decision Support Systems (JDSS) have been implemented in Canada, USA, Scotland and New South Wales. They are also known as Information Support Systems (SIS)
The principle of SIS is that the system provides users with information about the range of sentences, which have been passed by the High Court for similar cases in the past. The system allows the judge to enter certain criteria into the computer about the characteristics of the offence and offender in the pending case, and the range and quantum of penalties passed by the court for similar cases is displayed. But the decision is always a matter for the discretionary judgement of the judge.

5. The plight of victims is taken into account in sentencing
In an increasing number of jurisdictions where the victim does not have the right to prosecute, the victim is allowed to provide information through a victim impact statement or victim statement of opinion. This option is used in the United States, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, Ireland and parts of Australia. The information is generally provided to the judge prior to sentencing.
In most jurisdictions that allow victim impact statements, the victim fills out (often with the assistance of the prosecutor or another authority) a form in which he or she indicates what impact the offence has had, what property was lost or damaged, what other financial losses resulted, and how the event has disrupted the life of the victim. It thus provides the victim with an opportunity to inform the court of how the offence has affected him or her physically, mentally, and otherwise.
A victim impact statement provides the victim with an opportunity not only to relate what impact the offence has had on him or her but also what, in the view of the victim, should be done about the matter.
Medical reports are also received as appropriate and both the defence counsel and the Crown prosecutor may make submissions with regard to sentencing.

Further implications
There would appear to be growing pressure across a range of Australian jurisdictions to limit judicial discretion in sentencing. Much of this would appear to be fuelled by popular beliefs in the leniency and inconsistency of judicial sentences. Coupled with this is a growing fear in the public mind of an upsurge in criminality.
The reality of these perceptions is dubious. At least over the past decade, the length of sentences appears to have increased. Popular perceptions of judicial leniency appear to grow out of a few highly publicised violent crimes, often involving particularly vulnerable victims. In such cases if sentences seem inadequate there is usually a substantial media campaign and well-publicised popular outrage.
Crime statistics do not support the generally held belief in a dramatic increase in all areas of crime. The murder rate within Australia per head of population appears to have remained virtually constant over most of the last century.
Australian Bureau of Statistics crime figures published in 1998 by the Australian Institute of Criminology reveal some interesting trends.
The category `other theft' (which includes offences such as pick pocketing, bag snatching and stock stealing) was the most commonly recorded crime, accounting for 43% of the total.
The next most common offence was unlawful entry with intent, accounting for 34%, followed by motor vehicle theft at 11%.
Together, these property theft offences accounted for approximately 88% of the seven major crimes.
Assault was the most commonly recorded violent crime.
The rate of assaults has been increasing steadily from 1995, while the rate of robbery has been increasing only slightly since 1993.
The rate of both homicide and sexual assault has remained relatively stable over the five years from 1993 to 1998.
These figures would appear to suggest that while popular apprehension about increased rates of general assault may be justified, popular fear of growing rates of homicide and sexual assault appear misplaced. It is also interesting to note that property theft offences account for the vast majority of serious crime.
The Northern Territory's focus on mandatory sentences for property offences would seem to have acknowledged this reality. Popular calls for tougher sentencing in other states appear more focused on concern about homicides and sexual assaults, especially gang rapes.
Within New South Wales, the dreadful case of Anita Cobby, a young woman who in 1986 was kidnapped, gang raped, brutally beaten and murdered, appears to have had a lasting effect on both the judiciary and the attitude taken by both major political parties to certain forms of crime. It has been suggested that NSW introduction of Truth in Sentencing was in part a reaction to the Cobby case. The situation has now been further complicated in New South Wales by a number of highly publicised gang rapes that appear to be partially racial in origin.
There also appears a generational bias in fear of crime and demands for punishment. Popular perception appears to be that it is the elderly that are most at risk of being robbed or attacked. Crime statistics do not bear this out. While it is true that victims are getting older, this may merely reflect the ageing of the Australian population.
A Commonwealth Government report issued in 2000 revealed that `Both men and women are most at risk of being a victim of assault while aged between 15 and
24. Assault rates against men are higher than the rates against women for all age groups.'
Nationwide, most people who are imprisoned are young men aged between 20 and 35. Many of these have had a previous criminal record. How best to deal with youth crime remains an ongoing issue. There appears to be a marked split between those who seek preventative and rehabilitative measures and those who believe harsher punishments should be inflicted.
Professor Arie Freiberg, Professor of Criminology, at the University of Melbourne argues `There is no ideal level of sentencing.'
According to Professor Freiberg we will ultimately get the level of sentencing that our society demands. The Professor believes, `Sentencing levels are culturally determined, reflecting the needs and desires of the community within which they are imposed.'
The suggestion appears to be that ultimately judicial discretion will fall in line behind the popular will. This appears to be the case in New South Wales and is likely to be increasingly the case in Victoria. Politicians are particularly sensitive to community anger on law and order issues and it is politicians who frame sentencing laws.
If popular perceptions are so powerful it is vital that the community is well informed when it forms its judgements about appropriate sentencing. At the moment this does not appear to be the case. Popular views seem to be formed by the most extreme cases, and as the nineteenth century American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, `Hard cases make bad laws.'

Sources
The Age
2/2/02 page 9 news item, `Pack rapists face longer jail terms'
14/3/02 page 3 news item by Sarah Crichton, `Appeal judges double jail terms for gang rapists'
4/4/02 page 3 news item by Peter Gregory, `Anger as teen killers return to youth custody'
5/4//02 page 3 news item by Seamus Bradley, `Pressure for appeal in gran-killing case'
5/4/02 page 12 editorial, `Testing the limits of the legal system'
9/4/02 page 15 comment by Gerard Henderson, `Ignoring the plea for justice'

The Australian
14/3/02 page 3 news item by Matthew Spencer, `Jail sentences trebled for gang rapists'
27/3/02 page 3 news item by Vaness Walker and Sid marris, `More put behind bars for longer'
9/4/02 page 5 news item by Kevin Meade, `Jury sentencing call "ludicrous"'

The Herald Sun
20/3/02 page 5 news item by Geoff Wilkinson, `You be the judge'
21/3/02 page 20 editorial, `Fitting punishment'
24/3/02 page 24 analysis and comment by Victoria's Chief Justice, John Harber Phillips, `How courts arrive at their sentences'
4/4/02 page 1 news item by Elissa Hunt, `So this is justice?'
4/4/02 page 1 editorial comment, `The Herald Sun says'
5/4/02 page 1 news item by Elissa Hunt and Ashley Gardiner, `Justice for our Gran'
5/4/02 page 4 news item, `Bracks stays out of sentence row'
6/4/02 page 24 editorial, `Courting favour'
8/4/02 page 18 comment by Matthew Pinkney, `Killers' sentence a failure'
17/4/02 page 3 news item by Elissa Hunt, `Granny's killers facing more jail'
17/4/02 page 18 editorial, `Seeking justice'