By Elizabeth Moore; Suzanne Poynton; Pierrette Mizzi; Una Doyle

Aim

This study aims to assess whether, from the perspective of the judiciary, the NSW sentencing reforms, commencing in September 2018, are operating as intended and to identify any impediments to implementation.

 Background

In September 2018 significant legislative changes were introduced to expand the community-based sentencing options available to offenders in NSW. A key driver for the changes was to increase opportunities for offenders to be supervised and to engage in rehabilitation programs. To assess whether the sentencing reforms are operating as intended and identify any barriers to implementation, an online survey of 93 NSW judicial officers was undertaken In October 2019.

The survey aimed to assess:

judicial officers’ perceptions of the sentencing reforms whether judicial officers feel there is more flexibility in sentencing decisionswhether the process of obtaining a ‘Sentencing Assessment Report’ for a community-based order had improvedwhether any barriers exist to imposing the new community-based sentencing options.

 Key findings

Overall, the majority of judicial officers agreed that the sentencing reforms are operating as intended.
Table 1 shows: 71% agreed the changes have increased the opportunity for offenders to serve supervised community-based orders.57% agreed that the new community-based options provide more flexibility in sentencing decisions.47% agreed that the changes have increased the opportunity for offenders to participate in rehabilitation programs. In addition, 89% agreed that the ‘Sentencing Assessment Reports’ are provided on time and 65% agreed the reports provide sufficient information.

However, judicial officers identified a number of concerns including:

the suspension of supervision for low-medium risk offendersthe lack of information available to the court regarding ICO breachesICO exclusions for certain offenceslack of services particularly in rural locations to allow the full range of conditions to be used.

 Conclusion

While the majority of judicial officers surveyed agree that the sentencing reforms are operating as intended, a number of practical issues remain that may affect the extent to which the expanded community-based sentencing options are used.

(Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 230). Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 2020. 31p.

By Irene Oritseweyinmi Joe

While the public defender is critical to protecting individual rights in the U.S. criminal process, state governments take remarkably different approaches to distributing public defense services. Some states organize indigent defense as a function of the executive branch of state governance; others administer indigent defense through the judicial branch. The remaining state governments do not place the public defender within any branch of state government, instead delegating its management to local counties. This administrative choice has important implications for the public defender’s efficiency and effectiveness. It influences how the service will be funded and the extent to which the public defender, as an institution, will respond to the particular interests of its local community. So, which branch of government should oversee the public defender? Should the public defender exist under the same branch of government overseeing both the prosecutor and police—two entities the public defender seeks to hold accountable in the criminal process? Should the provision of services be housed under the judicial branch—although this branch is ordinarily tasked with being a neutral arbiter in criminal proceedings? Perhaps a public defender that is independent of statewide governance is ideal, even if that might render it a lesser player among the many government agencies battling at the state level for limited financial resources. This Article answers the question of state assignment by engaging in an original examination of each state’s architectural choices for the public defender. Its primary contribution is to enrich our current understanding of how each state manages the public defender and how that decision influences the institution’s funding and ability to adhere to ethical and professional mandates. It concludes the public defender should be an important executive function in this modern era of mass criminalization and articulates modifications that would improve such a state design by insulating it from pressure by other system actors.

106 Iowa L. Rev. 113 (2020)

By Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates: UK

In this report, the Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates focus on recruitment and retention in the agencies that they inspect. The report draws on evidence from inspections conducted by each of the individual inspectorates, both jointly and singly, of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Probation and Youth Offending Services and the Prison Service. It sets out the findings from this work, as well as cross-cutting themes. It concludes by highlighting signs of progress as well as ongoing risks to the criminal justice system.

United Kingdom, CJJI. 2024, 19pg