Penalties for sexual offences

On 15 August 2007, the Attorney General asked us to examine whether the penalties for sexual offences were appropriate.

Report

We transmitted volume 1 of our Report: Penalties Relating to Sexual Assault Offences in New South Wales, Volume 1 (PDF, 704.1 KB) to the Attorney General in August 2008

We transmitted volume 2 of our Report: Penalties Relating to Sexual Assault Offences in New South Wales, Volume 2: Statistics (PDF, 440.2 KB) to the Attorney General in August 2008

We transmitted volume 3 of our Report: Penalties Relating to Sexual Assault Offences in New South Wales, Volume 3 (PDF, 1.3 MB) to the Attorney General on 26 May 2009

Some recommendations in our Report were implemented by:

• Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2008 (NSW)
• Crimes Amendment (Child Pornography and Abuse Material) Act 2010 (NSW)

Terms of reference

The following terms of reference were issued on 15 October 2007:

Pursuant to s 100J of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the Sentencing Council is to examine whether the penalties currently attaching to sexual offences in New South Wales are appropriate, in accordance with the following terms of reference:

1. Whether or not there are any anomalies or gaps in the current framework of sexual offences and their respective penalties;

2. If so, advise how any perceived anomaly or gap might be addressed;

3. Advise on the use and operation of statutory maximum penalties and standard minimum sentences when sentences are imposed for sexual offences and whether or not statutory maximum penalties and standard minimum sentences are set at appropriate levels;

4. Consider the use of alternative sentence regimes incorporating community protection, such as the schemes used in Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand;

5. Consider possible responses to address repeat offending committed by serious sexual offenders; and in particular, whether second and subsequent serious sex offences should attract higher standard minimum and maximum penalties in order to help protect the community. If so, advise what these penalties could be.

6. Advise whether or not "good character" as a mitigating factor has an impact on sentences and sentence length and if so whether there needs to be a legislative response to the operation of this factor;

7. Advise on whether it is appropriate that the "special circumstance" of sex offenders serving their sentence in protective custody may form the basis of reduced sentences.