Mandatory sentences for assaults 'haven't worked': legal body (2024)

A Tasmanian legal body has said a new government bill to impose minimum sentences for assaults on a broad range of frontline workers will not deter the offence from happening, referencing a similar Tasmanian law that has failed to achieve its objective.

The government two terms ago attempted to impose a six-month mandatory sentence for assaults on nurses, midwives paramedics and correctional workers, but was blocked from doing so when a former House of Assembly speaker crossed the floor to vote against it.

During this year's election campaign, the government announced a bill to have a minimum presumptive sentence of six months for serious assaults on frontline workers and broaden the definition of a frontline worker to include those in retail, hospitality and transport workers, and members of the Tasmania Fire Service.

The bill will allow a court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum sentence if it can justify doing so.

Attorney-General Guy Barnett over the weekend said the bill would be tabled when state parliament returned this week.

There are already mandatory minimum six-month sentences for serious assaults against Tasmanian police officers.

According to data from Community Legal Centres Tasmania, assaults against police officers have been higher each year than the year legislation was passed in 2014.

CLCT principal solicitor Ben Bartl said this showed that the law has had no significant deterrent effect on the crime.

He said nobody had so far been convicted with a six-month mandatory sentence, and the law was only once invoked in Supreme Court matter where the offender ended up with a five-month sentence.

Drawing on data of worker compensation claims for assaults on workers, Mr Bartl said three of the five occupations with the highest amount of claims were not captured in the bill.

Mr Bartl said a Sentencing Advisory Council report on assaults on emergency service workers recommended the definition of this particular worker be narrowed to those at the forefront of an emergency.

"We also see no justification for broadening presumptive minimum sentences to other so-called 'frontline workers'," he said.

"Child safety officers, correctional services officers, health workers, workplace health and safety inspectors, transport workers and retail or hospitality workers should all be excluded from the bill."

TasCOSS in a submission on the bill stated that there was a volume of evidence that demonstrated mandatory sentencing was not an effective deterrent to assaults and the presumptive sentencing bill would do little to protect frontline workers from harm.

It referred to comment from the Law Society of Australia which stated that mandatory sentencing regimes could produce unjust results and undermine community confidence in judges to administer justice and deliver appropriate sentences.