House debates Bill to end sentencing law contradiction

The House of Assembly earlier today debated the Penal System Reform (Amendment) Bill, aimed at ending a 26-year contradiction in sentencing law.

Under the amendment, judges may consider previous convictions at sentencing only when “directly relevant” to the current offence. Repeat fraud or repeat violence could draw harsher penalties, Nicholls said, while unrelated history, a past traffic offence in a fraud case, for instance, would stay excluded.

Introducing the bill, Minister of Home Affairs and Information Gregory Nicholls said the amendment targets Section 40 of the Penal System Reform Act, passed in 2000 and based on England’s 1991 Criminal Justice Act. Subsection 1 bars courts from treating an offence as more serious solely because of an offender’s past convictions or failure to respond to earlier sentences. Subsection 2, though, allows judges to weigh prior convictions that reveal an aggravating factor, a clash Nicholls said has never been resolved.

He said the change apply strictly after conviction, at sentencing, and that during trials juries must still be told to disregard any knowledge of an accused’s record when determining guilt.

Nicholls predicted longer custodial sentences and fewer non-custodial outcomes, fines, probation, suspended sentences, for offenders showing a pattern of similar crimes, while first-time offenders remain shielded from harsher treatment. He framed the bill as granting “greater judicial flexibility” without mandatory minimums or eroding judicial discretion.

“The two sections stood almost in opposition to each other,” Nicholls said, noting judges had long trodden carefully around the conflict, unable to fully account for persistent or escalating offending in repeat cases. (BA)

The post House debates Bill to end sentencing law contradiction appeared first on nationnews.com.