ABSTRACT
In recent years, Australia has witnessed vigorous media, political and professional debate about sentencing. The central themes are familiar through much of the world: perceived leniency and inconsistency on the part of judges; questions of judicial accountability; an alleged lack of transparency in the system; and criticism of an apparent lack of responsiveness to public concern. In response to these concerns, the Western Australian parliament has enacted legislation which paves the way for far tighter control of judicial discretion and the development of a 'sentencing matrix'. This is the first time that a grid-style approach to sentencing has been a real possibility outside the United States and, as such, is of international as well as national significance. The first part of this paper outlines the factors behind the proposal and the process by which it has been developed. The second part discusses the model itself and the third section analyses the model in terms of its avowed benefits. It concludes that the proposed matrix will not achieve its avowed aims of greater accountability and transparency and is likely to lead to injustice, discrimination and dangerous levels of political control over sentencing. 1
During 1999 and 2000, the matrix was regarded as a high priority by the Liberal/National Party government. In February 2001, the Labour Party was unexpectedly elected to office and does not assign the same priority to the matrix. However, there is no indication that the new government anticipates repealing the enabling legislation and the issues which gave rise to the proposal are alive and well.
