2011/10: Should there be fixed minimum periods of detention for 16 and 17-year-olds convicted of gross violence?

What they said...
'When a violent thug inflicts premeditated gross violence on innocent victims, the community needs to be protected... Rehabilitation is not the sole consideration when sentencing juvenile offenders'
Victorian Attorney General, Robert Clark

'The ability of the current detention system to rehabilitate young offenders is increasingly in doubt... Detention seems to criminalise young people further'
The Australian Law Reform Commission's inquiry into juvenile detention

The issue at a glance
On May 30, 2011, it was announced that the Victorian government had asked the state's Sentencing Advisory Council (SAC) to look into minimum jail terms for 16- and 17-year-olds convicted of violent crime.
The SAC is being asked to recommend protocols determining which type of crime should be included in this category and under what highly exceptional circumstances judges may be able to issue less than a two-year sentence for young people found guilty of such offences. The SAC will be calling for public submissions.
This is the first stage of the Baillieu government's implementation of part of its election campaign policy on law and order.
The then Opposition promised that if elected it would introduced fixed minimum terms of four years for adults convicted of violent crime and fixed minimum terms of two years for 16- and 17-year-olds convicted of comparable crimes.
A variety of legal spokespeople and those involved in child welfare have spoken out against the proposed change to Victoria's law.

Background
Mandatory sentencing
A mandatory sentence is a fixed penalty for a particular offence. The term is often understood as referring to a mandatory minimum sentence, particularly one of imprisonment. For most criminal offences, the courts have the discretion to decide a person's sentence, based on the circumstances of each case. However, if a person is found guilty of an offence with a mandatory minimum penalty, the court cannot impose a sentence lower than that mandatory minimum.
Very few offences in Victoria carry a mandatory prison sentence. Examples include:
driving while suspended or disqualified on the second or subsequent occasion, which carries a mandatory minimum penalty of one month's imprisonment under section 30 of the Road Safety Act 1986 ; causing a fire with intent to cause damage, which carries a mandatory minimum penalty of 'imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than twenty years' under section 39C of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.

Mandatory Sentencing across Australia
Other states also have mandatory sentences for specific offences. Western Australia has a mandatory sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for assaulting a police officer, prison officer or public transport security staff. The Northern Territory introduced mandatory sentencing laws for property offences in 1997 but those laws were repealed in 2001.
Life imprisonment is mandatory for murder in Queensland, South Australia, and the Northern Territory. Life imprisonment is only mandatory in the other states for aircraft hijacking or with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years (25 years in South Australia and the Northern Territory) if a criminal is convicted of the murder of a police officer or public official.
Australia also has legislation allowing mandatory prison sentences of between five to 25 years for people smuggling, in addition to a fine of up to $500,000, and forfeiture and destruction of the vessel or aircraft used in the offence.

Youth detention
In 2007, Victoria was recorded as having the lowest rate of youth detention in the country. Just 9 per cent of Victorian youths aged 10-17 were sentenced to juvenile corrections institutions. This compared with a rate of more than 59.4 per cent in Western Australia and 29.1 per cent in Tasmania.

Internet information
In 2001 The Law Council of Australia issued a discussion paper titled, 'The Mandatory Sentencing Debate'. The paper focuses on mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory; however, its conclusions are unfavourable regarding mandatory sentencing in general.
The full text of this paper can be found at http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=91B75434-1E4F-17FA-D2BA-B6D5A60592A7&siteName=lca

In August 2008, the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council issued a report titled, 'Sentencing Matters: Mandatory Sentencing'. The report gives a detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of such a system and concludes overall that were it possible to implement it would be unlikely to achieve its aims. It also suggests that lawyers and judges would be likely to attempt to circumvent it.
The full text of the report can be found at http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftalksentencing.vic.gov.au%2Fdocument%2Fshow%2F4&rct=j&q=mandatory%20sentencing%20deterrent%20Victoria&ei=V_r1Tf-bCIakvgOrp6jNBg&usg=AFQjCNFo5K39PwPy-wuTa4YCeKI2X6dRKg

On November 23, 2010, the Victorian Liberal/National Coalition issued a media release titled, 'Coalition to set minimum sentence standards for serious crime'. The released was issued under the name of the then shadow Attorney General, Robert Clark, and detailed that fixed minimum sentences would be imposed for a range of serious crimes in Victoria.
The full text of this release can be found at http://www.robertclark.net/news/coalition-to-set-minimum-sentence-standards-for-serious-crime/

On November 24, 2010, the Victorian Liberal/National Coalition issued a media release titled, 'Violent thugs to face at least four years' jail for gross violence'. The released was issued under the name of the then shadow Attorney General, Robert Clark, and detailed the fixed minimum sentences that adult and juvenile offenders would face as penalties for violent assaults.
The full text of this release can be found http://www.robertclark.net/news/violent-thugs-to-face-at-least-four-years-jail-for-gross-violence/

In April 2011, the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council released a paper titled, 'Does Imprisonment Deter: A Review of the Evidence'. The review concluded, 'The evidence from empirical studies suggests that the threat of imprisonment generates a small general deterrent effect. However, the research also indicates that increases in the severity of penalties, such as increasing the length of imprisonment, do not produce a corresponding increase in the general deterrent effect.'
The full text of the paper can be found at http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/does_imprisonment_deter_a_review_of_the_evidence.pdf

On May 30, 2011, ABC News ran a report titled, 'Mandatory jail terms sought for violent teens'. The brief report gives a variety of views on the issue. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/30/3230193.htm

On May 30, 2011, Radio National's PM included a report on the Victorian government's intention to institute fixed minimum jail terms for violent teenagers. The report includes comments from the Victorian Attorney General, Robert Clark; the co-director of the young people's legal rights centre Youthlaw, Tiffany Overall; the president of the Law Institute of Victoria, Caroline Counsel, and Mick Gooda, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner.
The full text of this report can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3231005.htm

On May 30, 2011, The Geelong Advertiser published a news report entirely favourable to the Baillieu government's changes to the sentencing of violent young offenders. The report includes only comments from the Victorian Attorney General and a Geelong father whose son was seriously bashed. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2011/05/30/260871_news.html

On May 30, 3AW issued a news report titled, 'Teenage gangsters face jail terms'. The brief report is followed by a number of reader comments supporting the fixed minimum terms of detention. The full text of the report and these comments can be read at http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-news-blog/teenage-gangsters-face-jail-terms/20110530-1fbbr.html

On May 30, the Channel Nine News included a report focusing on former prison chaplain, Peter Norden's opposition to the Victorian youth sentencing plan. The full text of this report can be found at http://news.ninemsn.com.au/mobile/article.aspx?id=8254899&_sp=2045&noid=6303&_s=abbe2eb6-165e-4217-a9b3-5108e0b71850

Skepticlawyer is an Internet site maintained by two lawyers and a journalist that provides commentary on contemporary legal issues.
On May 30, 2010, the site includes a critical commentary on the effectiveness of mandatory detention or fixed minimum terms as a means of dealing with young offenders. It refers specifically to the proposed changes to the laws in Victoria.
These comments can be found at http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2011/05/30/mandatory-sentencing-throwing-away-the-key-is-not-the-answer/

On May 31, The Brisbane Times published an editorial titled, 'Victoria likely to regret rush to lock 'em up'. The editorial argues that detention is likely to criminalise young people and that rehabilitative programs are more effective. The full text of this editorial can be found at http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/editorial/victoria-likely-to-regret-rush-to-lock-em-up-20110530-1fcqe.html

On June 2, 2011, The Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion piece written by Jordana Cohen, a lawyer at Youthlaw is a specialist law centre for young people under 25 years. The piece is titled, 'Jailing children will just make them better criminals'. It can be read it full at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/jailing-children-will-just-make-them-better-criminals-20110603-1fk00.html

On June 3, 2011, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service issued a media release titled 'Mandatory Sentencing Will Bring Harm, Not Community Benefit'. The release argues that mandatory sentencing results in unmanageable prisons and high recidivism rates. The full text of this release can be found at http://vals.org.au/static/files/assets/e68514cc/Minimum_Sentencing_Media_Release_FINAL_APPROVED.pdf

On June 8, 2011, the Victorian Attorney General, Robert Clark, issued a media release titled, 'Sentencing claims are wrong'. The release is a defence against some of Greg Barns criticisms of the Victorian sentencing proposals. It is also an assertion of the Victorian government's right to set sentence that the courts then implement.
The full text of this release can be found at http://www.robertclark.net/news/sentencing-claims-are-wrong/

Arguments in favour of fixed minimum periods of detention for 16- and 17-year-olds
1. Fixed minimum periods of detention would act as a deterrent
In November 2010, the then Opposition leader and now premier of Victoria, Mr Ted Baillieu stated, 'Too often, current sentencing laws fail to deliver penalties that will protect the community and deter would-be offenders.
Three out of every four offenders convicted of intentionally causing serious injury receive a minimum jail term of two years or less.
We need to make it clear that those who deliberately set out to take part in violent attacks, or who continue to inflict horrific injuries on incapacitated victims, will spend a long time behind bars.'
Mr Baillieu said this measure would send a clear message that violent attacks on innocent Victorians would not be tolerated under a Coalition government.
The Government believes that judicial discretion is allowing potential offenders to expect that they will not receive a significant sentence. Under the provisions of the new law courts will only be able to impose a minimum sentence below two years in tightly defined exceptional circumstances. To qualify as "exceptional" the circumstances of the case must be so unusual that the court is entitled to assume Parliament would never have intended them to be covered.

2. Imprisonment would protect the community
The primary focus of the Baillieu government's policy regarding young, violent offenders is community protection.
The Victorian Attorney-General, Robert Clark, has stated that the rehabilitation of a prisoner is not the only factor to be taken into account when passing a sentence. Another important factor is the protection of the community. Mr Clark argues that there are times when this is best achieved by locking the assailant up.
Mr Clark has stated, 'When a violent thug inflicts premeditated gross violence on innocent victims, the community needs to be protected... Rehabilitation is not the sole consideration when sentencing juvenile offenders."
Mr Clark has further stated, 'We believe that the sentences that are being applied are way out of line with ... what's needed to achieve a safe community.'
Defenders of mandatory minimum terms argue that in addition to acting as a deterrent, a custodial sentence removes the young offender from the general community and so reduces that person's capacity to hurt anyone else.
Robert Clark has stated, 'What is absolutely clear is if offenders are off the streets, behind bars or in detention, they can't be out there re-offending and re-inflicting the sort of gross violence that is causing so much distress, so much anxiety in the community.'

3. Only assaults involving gross violence would receive these penalties
Defenders of this change in law have stressed that the mandatory sentences will be applied only to serious offences involving violence.
The Baillieu government has indicated that its proposed mandatory sentencing policy would affect youths whose violent crimes were intentional or reckless and caused serious injury, and where there was gross violence, such as the use of weapons, gang attacks or a continuation of an attack on incapacitated victims.
The premier, Mr Ted Baillieu has stated, 'Victorians are sick and tired of reading time and time again of horrific, unprovoked attacks that are leaving victims with terrible, life-long injuries.'
The premier then referred to some of the sorts of assault that would attract fixed minimum sentences. Mr Baillieu specified, '"A young man leaving a football game is king-hit from behind without warning, and then kicked in the head repeatedly, suffering permanent brain damage.
A student innocently walking home through a railway underpass is bashed by a gang until unconscious, and then left for dead.
A promising footballer is choked unconscious in a fast food restaurant before being flung to the ground.
Vicious kicking or stomping on the heads of victims is becoming commonplace, and the deliberate carrying and use of knives to inflict terrible wounds continues unabated.'
Mr Baillieu further explained, 'These attacks go way beyond spontaneous street brawls. They are part of a culture of extreme violence that threatens to change forever the generally law-abiding and peaceful way of life we have been so fortunate to enjoy in Australia.'

4. Such sentences are in line with community expectations
The Government maintains that current sentencing practice has undermined the community's faith in the operation of Victorian courts.
When announcing minimum two-year sentences for 16- and 17-yer-olds found guilty of crimes involving gross violence, the Attorney General, Robert Clark, stated, 'We believe that the sentences that are being applied are way out of line with community expectations and what's needed to achieve a safe community. And that's what we committed to legislate on in the course of the election campaign.'
While still leader of the Opposition, the now premier, Mr Ted Baillieu stated, 'Labor's soft on crime approach has allowed this problem to get to the point where Victorians no longer have confidence in the sentencing regime in this state...The community, through Parliament is entitled to - and needs to - set out in legislation what levels of penalties it expects to apply for various crimes. The courts then apply the law to individual cases.'
Mr Baillieu further noted, 'Victorians are sick and tired of seeing offenders receive hopelessly inadequate sentences time and time again when they destroy the lives of young people with drugs, or commit the most horrific of murders.'
The Government is equally of the view that Victorians want stiffer penalties applied to young offenders who commit serious crimes involving violence.
Referring to young offenders, Mr Baillieu similarly stated, '"Victorians are sick and tired of reading time and time again of horrific, unprovoked attacks that are leaving victims with terrible life-long injuries.'

5. The Government has a mandate to implement these penalties
The Baillieu government went to the electorate in November 2010 with a campaign that focused strongly on law and order issues. The Coalition pledged a safer train network with officers at all metropolitan railway stations; the abolition of suspended sentences; the end of home detention; harsher anti-hoon laws; banning violent drunks from licensed premises and a crack-down on criminal violent gangs.
Included in this law and order campaign was a promised review of sentencing and the introduction of fixed term minimum sentences for those who commit gross acts of violence - including those committed by 16- and 17-year-olds.
The new government has therefore claimed that it has a mandate to implement its policy regarding young violent offenders. Indeed the Attorney General, Robert Clark, has indicated that he believes that the government has an obligation to act on its election promises.

Arguments against fixed minimum periods of detention for 16- and 17-year-olds
1. Fixed minimum sentences do not result in a lower crime rate
It has been repeatedly claimed that harsher penalties do not result in reduced crime rates. According to the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council's 2011 report on imprisonment as a deterrent, harsher punishments were not linked to reduced rates of offending.
Similarly, a study by the Australian Institute of Criminology indicates that people will be deterred by the threat of punishment only if they are rational actors who weigh up the costs and benefits of committing a crime before deciding whether to commit it. This is not typical of violent offenders, nor is it typical of young offenders.
The president of the Children's Court, Judge Paul Grant, has publicly stated there is 'no simple connection between "locking them up" and stopping offending behaviour'.
Judge Grant went on to explain, 'There does not seem to be any connection between higher rates of custodial orders and lower rates of offending.'
Judge Grant further noted that New South Wales detained more children than Victoria, yet that state's crime rate was higher.
Jordana Cohen, a lawyer at the young people's legal centre Youth Law, said that while the proposed changes might be a 'short-term fix to make people happy that there are harsher sentences being doled out, is it going to make the streets safer at the end of the day? Unlikely.'
Studies of Western Australian conviction data also suggest that mandatory sentencing does not have an effect on a criminal's likelihood to re-offend.
Shadow attorney-general Martin Pakula has claimed there was no evidence to suggest mandatory sentences lowered rates of crime or recidivism. Mr Pakula has stated, 'One thing about mandatory sentencing that we know is that there is not a jurisdiction anywhere in the world where it's been shown to work.'

2. Jailing young offenders consolidates and extends their criminal behaviour
It has been claimed that locking young people up tends to increase their likelihood to re-offend. Critics argue this is because a young, impressionable person locked away with others who have committed a serious crime is likely to pick up undesirable habits and attitudes from the others with whom he or she is incarcerated.
The Australian Law Reform Commission's inquiry into juvenile detention concluded, 'The ability of the current detention system to rehabilitate young offenders is increasingly in doubt. A number of submissions to this Inquiry acknowledged its limitations. Detention seems to criminalise young people further. The Law Society of NSW referred to anecdotal evidence that detainees learn to 'play the game' to make themselves eligible for early release and then re-offend following their return to society.'
The Townsville Community Legal Service has stated, '[Detention] can create a revolving door. Children can become more aggressive towards the community and each other, and this can result in them being in trouble with the law again.'
Judge McGuire of the Children's Court of Queensland has stated, 'If young offenders are detained in a detention centre they are out of harm's way for the time being and cannot commit crimes against society. However, detention will not work, if when they come out, they are more criminally inclined than when they went in.'

3. Fixed minimum terms remove judicial discretion
It has been argued that there is no effective difference between mandatory sentencing and fixed minimum terms. Both serve to remove the discretion of a judge as they compel him or her to impose a particular sentence irrespective of the circumstances of the offence.
The president of the Law Institute of Victoria, Caroline Counsel, is among those who have criticised the removal of judges' discretion. She has stated, 'If the community was aware of the myriad of reasons why young offenders commit offences they might stop and pause and realise that you have to preserve judicial discretion in this particular area.'
Referring to the government's proposed changes, Caroline Counsel has argued, 'It's much easier to come out with some trite approach and say all people that commit a certain crime should spend a given period in jail. We say that it's actually more complex than that.'
Jordana Cohan, a lawyer at the legal clinic Youth Law, has specified some of the factors that need to be open to judicial discretion. Ms Cohan has stated, 'We would be very concerned if issues like mental illness, disability, the role of the offender in the circumstances of the offence ... weren't taken into account.'
Alistair Nicholson, chairman of Children's Rights International, has stated, 'The whole problem with children is that if you treat them in the same way as offending adults ... you're actively creating more problems for your future.
You [need to] treat them sensibly and try to reform and rehabilitate them; you're not going to do that by locking them up on a mandatory basis.'

4. Rehabilitation is more effective in protecting the community
It has been claimed that rehabilitation is a more effective means of protecting the community than detention. Under the new sentencing regime young people convicted of violent crime would be detained for two years. If there is no effective effort to change their behaviour patterns then once they are released they may continue to be a threat to the community.
Rehabilitation of the offender gives a greater opportunity of the young person not offending again and this offers greater security to the general community.
The Law Reform Commission's inquiry into youth detention concluded, 'Rehabilitation needs to be established nationally as the primary aim of detention. This is particularly so given the increasing push towards punitive measures in some jurisdictions. As commentators have pointed out, although punishment is rarely cited as an aim of juvenile detention ... it is a prevalent function of juvenile detention. Rehabilitation is beneficial not only to young offenders, but also to the community by assisting the young person to reintegrate into the community. Rehabilitation assists crime prevention by assisting to reduce the commission of further offences.'

5. The public is often more concerned to punish than reform
It has been claimed that governments should not merely follow public opinion on issues such as sentencing. There is, it is argued, a tendency for the general public to react unthinkingly to issues such as law and order, so that their first instinct is to punish where this is not necessarily the most appropriate response.
One of the commentators on the Internet site Skepticlawyer has stated, 'It's natural to sit there and be outraged when you read a brief newspaper report of a 17-year-old who bashed an old grandmother and does not serve a jail sentence. I'd be particularly outraged if it were my relative who was bashed, of course. However, we must always remember when we are reading press reports that we are only seeing a very small part of the information which was brought before the judge, magistrate or jury.'
A Victorian Sentencing Advisory Committee report on popular perceptions of sentencing found that people have very little accurate knowledge of crime and the criminal justice system and that when they are given more information, their levels of punitiveness drop dramatically.
It is argued that the popular tendency to demand harsher sentences than those usually given by courts is based on ignorance and when people are given more information about the complexity of cases or additional information about an offender's background they are more likely to concur with the judge's decision.

Further implications
One of the concerns voiced by some critics of the proposed mandatory sentencing of young offenders is that our detention system is not geared to deal with a dramatic increase in the number of young people being kept in custody.
In three years there has already been a 36 per cent jump in the number of youths in detention in Victoria. Some are being detained while awaiting trial. Currently there are calls for supported bail provisions as one way of dealing with the large number of young people being detained.
The Children's Court president, Judge Paul Grant, has called for action to ease the pressure on the system as part of the Children's Court's 2010 annual report. Judge Grant stated, 'With the increasing number of young people in our cells each day and the increasing numbers in the remand section of the youth justice facility at Parkville, the development of (a bail support) program would seem to be a priority.'
The Baillieu Government's intention, however, is to make bail terms more rigorous. This is likely to increase pressure on the prison system.
Before the election, the Coalition promised $268 million to fund 500 additional beds at existing jails in its first term to address the existing overcrowding in Victorian prisons. However, the Justice Department has argued that more needs to be done than this. The Baillieu government announced in last month's budget it would build a new men's prison and has allocated $2 million for Corrections Victoria to prepare a business case.
The Brumby government was also planning to build a new male correction facility.
Under the former government a business case had already been prepared by Corrections Victoria for a multipurpose men's complex of 700 to 800 beds.
The cost of building, operating and maintaining such a prison over the typical 25-year term of a public-private partnership (PPP) project would be over $2 billion. This figure does not include guards and other operating costs.
Such plans do not currently take into account what additional facilities would be necessary were Victoria to significantly increase the number of 16- and 17-year-olds it commits to terms in youth detention centres.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
AGE, April 7, 2011, page 15, comment by David Eagleman, `The law's one-size-fits-all approach ignores our varied biology'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/onesizefitsall-approach-ignores-our-varied-biology-20110406-1d4ef.html

H/SUN, April 1, 2011, page 2, news item by Geoff Wilkinson, `We're soft on sentencing'
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/no-more-jails-say-victorians/story-fn7x8me2-1226031629733

H/SUN, April 1, 2011, page 36 editorial, `Report a joke'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/sentencing-report-a-joke/story-e6frfhqo-1226031648843

AGE, May 18, 2011, page 13, comment by David Harper, `Don't rush to judge on sentencing'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-rush-to-judge-on-sentencing-20110517-1erae.html

AGE, June 2, 2011, page 14, comment (with Spooner cartoon) by Josh Gordon, `Baillieu finds crime pays'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/baillieu-finds-crime-pays-20110601-1fgju.html

AGE, June 1, 2011, page 16, letters incl, `Victims come first / Consider the bars / Populist and public / Law-abiders deserve better'.
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/letters/victims-come-first-20110531-1felq.html

AGE, June 1, 2011, page 3, news item (ref to "survey" conducted by Herald-Sun newspaper) by Gordon and Cooper, `Lawyers slam sentencing survey'.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lawyers-slam-sentencing-survey-20110531-1fepv.html

H/SUN, May 31, 2011, page 1, news item by McArthur and Buttler, `You be the judge'
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/you-be-the-judge-on-crime/story-fn7x8me2-1226065956342

H/SUN, May 31, 2011, page  24 editorial, `Let us hear your verdict'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/let-us-hear-your-verdict-on-sentencing/story-fn6bn88w-1226065995603

AGE, May 31, 2011, page 10, editorial, `Victoria likely to regret rush to lock 'em up'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/victoria-likely-to-regret-rush-to-lock-em-up-20110530-1fcqe.html

AGE, May 31, 2011, page 10, letters incl `Minimum terms a rough kind of justice / Wrong way, go back'. (scroll down the letters list to find the items)
http://www.theage.com.au/national/letters/ad-row-reeks-of-hypocrisy-20110530-1fcpz.html

AGE, May 31, 2011, page 5, news item  (ref to human rights) by Adrian Lowe, `Mandatory terms "will breach rights"'.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/mandatory-terms-will-breach-rights-20110530-1fd26.html

AGE, May 30, 2011, page 1, news item by Adrian Lowe, `Fear over plan to jail teen thugs'.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/concern-at-plan-to-jail-teen-thugs-20110529-1faxu.html

AGE, June 7, 2011, page 13, comment by Greg Barns, `Baillieu guilty of a grave injustice'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/baillieu-guilty-of-a-grave-injustice-20110606-1fp4e.html

AGE, June 5, page 5, news item (ref to  Herald-Sun newspaper "survey") by Peter Munro, `Sentencing expert criticises government's "flawed" crime poll'.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/sentencing-expert-criticises-governments-flawed-crime-poll-20110604-1fmgm.html




Built by Text2Html