The Alternative Sentencing Bill 2006

The HRC is essentially in support of the Alternative Sentencing Bill 2006 in the same way that it welcomes the Drug Court Bill 2006. Both are progressive pieces of prospective legislation, which seek to improve upon the arrangements that currently pertain. However, improving the lot of the convicted offender, through the provision of alternative sentencing options, can, and indeed should, be done without compromising fundamental human rights.

Clause 18(4) of this Bill states that “the convicted person may, with the leave of the court, require the attendance, for cross-examination, of the supervisor or any witness whose signed statement is included in the report.” The HRC was unable to see the need for obtaining leave of the court to cross-examine a compellable witness. Moreover, where the sanction that could be imposed was committal to prison, the HRC felt that the right to a fair trial would require cross-examination as a matter of course.

The HRC would prefer the use of the term “reasonable”, as opposed to “necessary” in clause 33(1) in relation to the labour that convicted persons may be required to perform in the restitution centre, as this would prevent any possible abuse of this power.

Finally, the HRC would welcome the removal of “after a finding of guilt” from clause 53(6), which relates to the release of the victim impact statement. Where a victim impact statement contains information relevant to defence and could therefore assist in the defendant’s decision-making process at trial, the fairness of the trial would be enhanced by the release of the victim impact statement at the earliest possible stage.

Last Updated: 2007-01-11