District Court Appeals Decisions

Hansard & Papers » Legislative Assembly » 25 June 2008 » Full Day Hansard Transcript » Item 50 of 52 » (Proof)
About this Item
Speakers - Torbay Mr Richard; Hornery Ms Sonia
Business - Private Members Statements, PRIV


DISTRICT COURT APPEALS DECISIONS
Page: 102

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands—Speaker) [7.55 p.m.]: I have a serious issue to raise today regarding the inconsistency of appeal decisions made by some District Court judges. I draw attention to a very poor outcome of one of those decisions: a violent young repeat offender from Tenterfield, in my electorate, had a severity appeal upheld in the Campbelltown District Court and immediately re-offended when he returned home on the free air ticket he was awarded. On January 14 this year a 14-year-old attempted to obtain money from a woman at an automatic teller machine [ATM] in Rouse Street, Tenterfield. What she thought was a gun was held to her head and the attacker demanded she hand over her money. The victim told police afterwards she was terrified and thought her life was in serious danger. She managed to escape to her car and then saw the offender and two accomplices trying to rob an old man who next used the ATM. She saved the old man by driving her car towards the offenders tooting her horn continuously. Fortunately, they were distracted long enough for the man to get to his car and drive away. He has not been identified.

The police were called and they arrested the offender, who was charged with attempted robbery and demanding money with menaces. When he appeared in the Children's Court in Tenterfield on 30 April the local magistrate sentenced him to a 12 months control order with a six months non-parole period. Only a week or so ago the Tenterfield police heard that a family member of the offender had been boasting that he had beaten the charges and the Campbelltown District Court judge had criticised the local magistrate over the severity of the sentence. Further inquiries revealed that the Department of Public Prosecutions had not even informed the victim or the Tenterfield police about the outcome of the appeal. The offender had received a caution in lieu of the control order and had been given a free flight home.
Since his return the offender has been charged with indecent assault. This year alone, prior to his appearance in court, he was charged with stalking, obscene exposure and possessing a prohibited drug. He is a known repeat offender in Tenterfield and the appeal decision of the Campbelltown District Court has caused grief to his victims, anger and frustration to the local police, and outrage in a peaceful country town which has a reasonable expectation of safety in its streets.

This outrageous situation shows just how out of touch some judges really are and how flawed the appeals system is on issues like this. Most crime in country areas—the figure is around 80 percent—is caused by young repeat offenders. They clog the local courts. I must say at this point that I am in favour of rehabilitation of young lawbreakers and believe that early intervention and a second chance for first offenders is essential. I do not believe in the principle of sentencing them and throwing away the key. However, there is a difference between young people who have temporarily lost their way and those with a built-in contempt for the law. The decision of the Campbelltown District Court judge sends quite the wrong message to the community. It also sends a message to some that they can get away with breaking the law. I have been told that certain District Court judges are targeted by lawyers and offenders because they are more likely to uphold appeals than others with a reputation for being tough.

The appeal process should be reviewed. The case I mention today is not isolated. There have been many times when police and communities have seen court decisions, made at a local level, overturned by District Court judges. One of the problems is that in District Courts the appeals are wedged in with many other cases and the results are inconsistent. Consideration should be given to a discrete appeals court presided over by a Supreme Court judge to hear cases from local courts. The grounds for appeal also need to be strengthened. Local communities who have to live with these hardened young criminals need to be assured that the law takes a dim view of their antisocial behaviour and that there are severe consequences, both as a deterrent and as a safety measure.

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend—Parliamentary Secretary) [7.59 p.m.]: I echo the concerns of the member for the Northern Tablelands and sympathise with the victims. I hope we can get some consistency because that is of real concern to the community.


Help | Site Index |