Sentence Indications for Indictable Offences: Increasing Court Efficiency at the Expense of Justice? A Response to the Victorian Legislation

Abstract

In September 2007, the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council released a report (2007c) recommending the introduction of sentence indications for indictable offences in Victoria's intermediate court. In response, on July 1, 2008, a legislated sentence indication process was implemented into Victoria's intermediate and Supreme Courts in s 23A of the Crimes (Criminal Trials) Act 1999 (Vic). This process is now governed by s 208-s 209 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic). Drawing upon national and international commentary and experiences with sentence indications, this article examines the potential benefits and disadvantages of the Victorian legislation, including its limited capacity to attract early guilty pleas and its potentially negative impact on victims and defendants. This article contends that the desire for court efficiency has led to the implementation of reforms across criminal justice systems that, while seeking to apply the benefits of reduced delays and early guilty pleas, ultimately prioritise efficiency gains above the interests of the public, victims and defendants. The Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council's proposal (2007c) and the subsequent provisions introducing an indictable indication scheme in s 208-s 209 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), are used to inform this argument.