Conclusion
According to Freiberg, “[sentencing is as much about politics as it is about law or criminology” and is “played out in the not only in the courts but in the broader arena of public opinion”.[378] However, there is a critical need for this opinion to be properly informed.
Indeed, Indermaur has observed: “Without accurate information on crime and justice... how are people able to assess its performance?”[379] In an attempt to examine this issue, this chapter presented an overview of the extent of publicly accessible information on sentencing in Australia, the evolution of sentencing councils and their role in informing the public about sentencing, and recent developments in sentencing policy, law and data in the ACT.119
120
121
The discussion indicated significant jurisdictional variation in the scope and currency of data made available to the public. In most jurisdictions, there appears to be a trade-off between the quality of the data and the extent to which information is readily available to the public. In particular, the sophisticated sentencing databases developed in NSW, Queensland and the Commonwealth are not available to the public and the ACT may soon follow suit in this regard (although the current moves to improve the publicly available quarterly data are of course noted). What is required, however, is information which is both comprehensive and disseminated in a timely fashion, but also in a format which is accessible and comprehensible to the public.
The majority of Australian jurisdictions have or are reportedly in the process of establishing sentencing councils, although the Queensland body has recently been disbanded. It would appear that the ACT Government has all but forgotten its 2008 election commitment to introduce such an organisation. This is lamentable, as such sentencing bodies “offer a more effective means of communication with the public about sentencing and penal policy than that which is available to the courts or to political representatives”.[380] Indeed, Hutton added although sentencing councils may not “guarantee. a more rational approach to penal policy. [they] at least offer an opportunity for [its] development”.[381]
Finally, the chapter presented a case study on the development of sentencing policy in Australia by considering recent developments in the ACT. This jurisdiction is doubtless not alone in responding in an ad hoc way to sentencing issues. It is argued that effective decision-making in this jurisdiction should include free public access to the proposed new sentencing database and a renewed consideration of the need to introduce a sentencing council. What is also required is an ongoing commitment to developing evidence-based sentencing policy and improving public knowledge and understanding about sentencing.