← All decisions

1. What was proposedChiaka BarryLiberal · Opposition
   Read the original wording (440 words)

   That this Assembly: (1) notes that: (a) the sentence delivered in DPP v Hancock (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 389 did not meet community expectations by considering that the young offender’s prior lack of sexual experience and inevitably limited insight into societal norms in Australia given his very short time in the country prior to the offending are factors mitigating his moral culpability; (b) the sentence has attracted significant community concern, media scrutiny and ongoing commentary around the public interest in sentencing outcomes for serious and violent offences, and is a catalyst for a review that investigates broader concerns regarding current sentencing laws and outcomes; and (c) a lack of sexual experience or understanding of societal norms is not an excuse for sexual assault; (2) further notes that: (a) while sentencing is an independent and impartial exercise of “instinctive synthesis” by judicial officers, the legislature has a responsibility to reflect community expectations in sentencing legislation and respond to current concerns; (b) ACT Police statistics report 3,650 sexual assault charges over the past five years; (c) the ACT Director of Public Prosecution’s (DPP) 2025-2026 annual report revealed that sexual violence prosecutions have increased by 96 percent over the past five years due to sustained growth in demand; (d) in 2024, the Law Reform and Sentencing Advisory Council was established to provide evidence-based and systemic analyses of sentencing, including by considering community expectations; and (e) in 2025, the Attorney-General abolished the Law Reform and Sentencing Advisory Council; and (3) calls on the Attorney-General to: (a) introduce legislation to allow the Attorney-General to instruct the DPP to appeal a decision if it is considered manifestly inadequate and contrary to public expectations; (b) in consultation with relevant stakeholders, commission a formal, independent and systematic review of ACT sentencing law to examine: (i) sentencing purposes; (ii) sentencing options; (iii) statutory penalties for serious crime; (iv) forms of imprisonment and attached conditions; (v) non-parole periods and the decision-making function and transparency of the ACT Sentence Administration Board; (vi) mitigating and aggravating factors; (vii) rehabilitation facilities; (viii) community safety measures, including any mandatory use of electronic monitoring devices for community-based sentences; and (ix) the re-establishment of an independent and representative ACT Sentencing Council to advise the Attorney-General on sentencing matters and monitor trends and community expectations; (c) examine in that review whether sentencing outcomes for serious offences are achieving the intent of sentencing legislation, including the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 and the Crimes Act 1900, the youth justice framework, the Government’s stated criminal justice policy objectives and community expectations; and (d) table the findings and recommendations in the Assembly, together with the Government’s response and proposed reforms, within 12 months. Debate ensued.

2. Proposed changeTara CheyneLabor · Minister20 October 2026

   Grouped by key words as: rewrote the proposal, added reporting or consultation, turned an action into a review.

   Before

   (3) calls on the Attorney-General to: (a) introduce legislation to allow the Attorney-General to instruct the DPP to appeal a decision if it is considered manifestly inadequate and contrary to public expectations; (b) in consultation with relevant stakeholders, commission a formal, independent and systematic review of ACT sentencing law to examine: (i) sentencing purposes; (ii) sentencing options; (iii) statutory penalties for serious crime; (iv) forms of imprisonment and attached conditions; (v) non-parole periods and the decision-making function and transparency of the ACT Sentence Administration Board; (vi) mitigating and aggravating factors; (vii) rehabilitation facilities; (viii) community safety measures, including any mandatory use of electronic monitoring devices for community-based sentences; and (ix) the re-establishment of an independent and representative ACT Sentencing Council to advise the Attorney-General on sentencing matters and monitor trends and community expectations; (c) examine in that review whether sentencing outcomes for serious offences are achieving the intent of sentencing legislation, including the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 and the Crimes Act 1900, the youth justice framework, the Government’s stated criminal justice policy objectives and community expectations; and (d) table the findings and recommendations in the Assembly, together with the Government’s response and proposed reforms, within 12 months. Debate ensued.

   After this change

   (3) calls on the Attorney-General to affirm: (a) the importance of prosecutorial independence; and (b) that prosecutorial independence does not remove the need to examine credible evidence of any deficiencies in the sentencing framework;

   The exact wording of this change

   together: 1. Omit all text in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), substitute: “(a) sexual violence is unacceptable, and ACT laws apply equally to everyone;”. 2. In paragraph (1)(c), omit “assault”, substitute: “violence”. 3. After all text in paragraph (1)(c), insert new paragraphs: “(c) sentencing outcomes for serious sexual violence offending can attract media scrutiny and strong community concern; and (d) while a single sentencing judgement does not establish a system-wide pattern, it may be timely to review current sentencing laws and outcomes for serious sexual violence offending;”. 4. In paragraph (2)(d), after “Council was established”, insert: “, in part,”. 5. Omit all text in paragraph (3), substitute: “(3) calls on the Attorney-General to affirm: (a) the importance of prosecutorial independence; and (b) that prosecutorial independence does not remove the need to examine credible evidence of any deficiencies in the sentencing framework;”. 6. Add: “(4) calls on the Government to: (c) in consultation with relevant stakeholders, undertake a targeted review of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 as it applies to serious sexual violence offences since the 2021 Report: Listen. Take Action to Prevent, Believe and Heal, including an examination of: (i) suspended sentences, the treatment of mitigating factors, and the young-offender provisions; (ii) community safety measures, including use of electronic monitoring devices for community-based sentences; and (iii) the re-establishment of an independent and representative ACT Sentencing Council to advise the Attorney-General on sentencing matters and monitor trends and community expectations; and (d) table the findings and recommendations in the Legislative Assembly, together with the ACT Government’s response and proposed reforms, within 12 months”. Debate continued. Mr Cocks, by leave, was granted an extension of time. Debate continued.

   Agreed in a recorded vote, 16 to 7. Some of its wording is in the final text.

   Ayes 16

   • Andrew Barr, Suzanne Orr, Yvette Berry, Marisa Paterson, Chris Steel, Rachel Stephen-Smith, Caitlin Tough, Tara Cheyne, Taimus Werner-Gibbings
   • Andrew Braddock, Rebecca Vassarotti, Jo Clay, Laura Nuttall
   • Fiona Carrick, Thomas Emerson
   • Leanne Castley

   Noes 7

   • Chiaka Barry, Peter Cain, Ed Cocks, Jeremy Hanson, James Milligan, Deborah Morris, Mark Parton
3. What the Assembly decidedAgreed

   Decided on the voices: no individual votes were recorded, so this doesn’t show that every MLA agreed.

   Final agreed wording, with changes marked

   That this Assembly: (1) notes that: (a) sexual violence is unacceptable, and ACT laws apply equally to everyoneCheyne; (b) a lack of sexual experience or understanding of societal norms is not an excuse for sexual violence; (c) sentencing outcomes for serious sexual violence offending can attract media scrutiny and strong community concern; and (d) while a single sentencing judgement does not establish a system-wide pattern, it may be timely to review current sentencing laws and outcomes for serious sexual violence offendingCheyne; (2) further notes that: (a) while sentencing is an independent and impartial exercise of “instinctive synthesis” by judicial officers, the legislature has a responsibility to reflect community expectations in sentencing legislation and respond to current concerns; (b) ACT Police statistics report 3,650 sexual assault charges over the past five years; (c) the ACT Director of Public Prosecution’s (DPP) 2025-2026 annual report revealed that sexual violence prosecutions have increased by 96 percent over the past five years due to sustained growth in demand; (d) in 2024, the Law Reform and Sentencing Advisory Council was established ,in part, to provide evidence-based and systemic analyses of sentencing, including by considering community expectations; and (e) in 2025, the Attorney-General abolished the Law Reform and Sentencing Advisory Council; and (3) calls on the Attorney-General to affirm: (a) the importance of prosecutorial independence; and (b) that prosecutorial independence does not remove the need to examine credible evidence of any deficiencies in the sentencing frameworkCheyne; (4) calls on the Government to: (a) in consultation with relevant stakeholders, undertake a targeted review of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 as it applies to serious sexual violence offences since the 2021 Report: Listen. Take Action to Prevent, Believe and Heal, including an examination of: (i) suspended sentences, the treatment of mitigating factors, and the young-offender provisions; (ii) community safety measures, including use of electronic monitoring devices for community-based sentences; and (iii) the re-establishment of an independent and representative ACT Sentencing Council to advise the Attorney-General on sentencing matters and monitor trends and community expectations; and (b) table the findings and recommendations in the Legislative Assembly, together with the ACT Government’s response and proposed reforms, within 12 months.

   Original and final wording compared

   taken out put in

   That this Assembly: (1) notes that: (a) [taken out: the sentence delivered in DPP v Hancock][put in: sexual violence is unacceptable, and ACT laws apply equally to everyone; (b)]a [taken out: pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 389 did not meet community expectations by considering that the young offender’s prior]lack of sexual experience [taken out: and inevitably limited insight into][put in: or understanding of]societal norms [taken out: in Australia given his very short time in the country prior to the offending are factors mitigating his moral culpability; (b) the sentence has attracted significant community concern, media scrutiny and ongoing commentary around the public interest in][put in: is not an excuse for sexual violence; (c)]sentencing outcomes for serious [put in: sexual violence offending can attract media scrutiny]and [taken out: violent offences,][put in: strong community concern;]and [taken out: is][put in: (d) while]a [taken out: catalyst for][put in: single sentencing judgement does not establish]a [put in: system-wide pattern, it may be timely to]review [taken out: that investigates broader concerns regarding]current sentencing laws and outcomes [taken out: and (c) a lack of sexual experience or understanding of societal norms is not an excuse]for [put in: serious]sexual [taken out: assault;][put in: violence offending;](2) further notes that: (a) while sentencing is an independent and impartial exercise of “instinctive synthesis” by judicial officers, the legislature has a responsibility to reflect community expectations in sentencing legislation and respond to current concerns; (b) ACT Police statistics report 3,650 sexual assault charges over the past five years; (c) the ACT Director of Public Prosecution’s (DPP) 2025-2026 annual report revealed that sexual violence prosecutions have increased by 96 percent over the past five years due to sustained growth in demand; (d) in 2024, the Law Reform and Sentencing Advisory Council was established [put in: ,in part,]to provide evidence-based and systemic analyses of sentencing, including by considering community expectations; and (e) in 2025, the Attorney-General abolished the Law Reform and Sentencing Advisory Council; and (3) calls on the Attorney-General to [put in: affirm:](a) [taken out: introduce legislation to allow]the [taken out: Attorney-General][put in: importance of prosecutorial independence; and (b) that prosecutorial independence does not remove the need]to [taken out: instruct][put in: examine credible evidence of any deficiencies in]the [taken out: DPP][put in: sentencing framework; (4) calls on the Government]to: [taken out: appeal](a) [taken out: decision if it is considered manifestly inadequate and contrary to public expectations; (b)]in consultation with relevant stakeholders, [taken out: commission][put in: undertake]a [taken out: formal, independent and systematic][put in: targeted]review of [taken out: ACT][put in: the Crimes](Sentencing) [taken out: law][put in: Act 2005 as it applies]to [taken out: examine: (i) sentencing purposes; (ii) sentencing options; (iii) statutory penalties for]serious [taken out: crime; (iv) forms of imprisonment and attached conditions; (v) non-parole periods and][put in: sexual violence offences since]the [taken out: decision-making function][put in: 2021 Report: Listen. Take Action to Prevent, Believe]and [taken out: transparency][put in: Heal, including an examination]of: [put in: (i) suspended sentences,]the [taken out: ACT Sentence Administration Board; (vi)][put in: treatment of]mitigating [taken out: and aggravating]factors, [taken out: (vii) rehabilitation facilities; (viii)][put in: and the young-offender provisions; (ii)]community safety measures, including [taken out: any mandatory]use of electronic monitoring devices for community-based sentences; and [taken out: (ix)][put in: (iii)]the re-establishment of an independent and representative ACT Sentencing Council to advise the Attorney-General on sentencing matters and monitor trends and community expectations; [taken out: (c) examine in that review whether sentencing outcomes for serious offences are achieving the intent of sentencing legislation, including the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005]and [taken out: the Crimes Act 1900, the youth justice framework, the Government’s stated criminal justice policy objectives and community expectations; and (d)][put in: (b)]table the findings and recommendations in the [put in: Legislative]Assembly, together with the [put in: ACT]Government’s response and proposed reforms, within 12 months. [taken out: Debate ensued.]

   Compared word by word by computer, ignoring punctuation. It shows what differs, not which change made each difference; the steps above show that.