Tuesday, 29 October 2024

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (12:22): (703) My question is for the Attorney-General. Attorney, is it Labor government policy that the prospect of deportation of a serious criminal who is not an Australian citizen is a valid sentencing consideration under the Sentencing Act?

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:23): I thank Mr Mulholland for his question. The law treats deportation as a relevant factor for the purpose of sentencing. Every judicial officer is an independent decision-maker in relation to each matter before them, and they act on that basis. For decades magistrates have taken into consideration a wide range of factors, including such matters as deportation and hardship. But I will caveat that with that is not a practice that is in itself exercised, and I will tell you why. In Victoria the Court of Appeal has held that sentencing courts cannot artificially lower a sentence being imposed to avoid the consequence of the Commonwealth Migration Act. So every criminal matter has a range of considerations that are relevant, because each matter is unique, and the judicial officer applies the law.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (12:24): Attorney, Victorian magistrates have reportedly received training on how to sentence serious criminals, including drug traffickers and sexual predators, in a way that allows them to avoid deportation. Given this, will the Labor government urgently amend the Sentencing Act to close this loophole and prevent the prospect of deportation being a valid sentencing consideration?

 Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:24): Mr Mulholland, the reports in the media that you have repeated in the way you framed your question I am asking some questions about, because I am advised by the Chief Magistrate that considerations reported on, such as deportation risk, were not the intention of the training as is reported. In fact she is confident that the majority of attendees at that training session, which was more than 100 participants, would disagree that the training was about avoiding deportation, as reported. I am happy to hear from any magistrate or any attendee at that training session who has any views of concern, but at this time I am advised that the majority do not. I am engaging in further conversations and, as I said, I have an open invitation for anybody who was at that training to confirm their interpretation as you have articulated.