The Sentencing Council is to review the sentencing for the offences of murder and manslaughter under sections 19A, 19B and 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), in particular:

In undertaking this review, the Sentencing Council should consider:

By way of introduction and background, I was an employee with Corrective Services New South Wales (CSNSW) for 30 years, commencing as a Probationary Prison Officer in 1984 and completed my career at the rank of Superintendent in 2014. I appeared on numerous occasions as a subject expert witness at Judicial hearings (District & Supreme Courts), Administrative Appeals Tribunal & Coronial Inquests for CSNSW, in relation to the classification and protective custody of inmates and removal of hanging points within prison and court cells. Received a Commissioner’s Commendation for significant work and dedication given to CSNSW. Received a Deputy Commissioner's Commendation for loyal and dedicated service and outstanding contribution to Offender Management & Operations Branch – CSNSW.

I have trained hundreds of both custodial and non custodial staff in the specialised area of inmate classification and placement of inmates throughout NSW. I was responsible for the classification of thousands of inmates throughout the NSW Correctional system during my career, also being an active member of the Serious Offenders Review Council and its subcommittees and delegate of the Deputy Commissioner on the Board of Management –Death in Custody Committee and other numerous high level steering committees.

I provided numerous information sessions to both internal groups and external agencies (both law enforcement agencies and NGO's), as well as overseas correctional law enforcement delegations about the inmate classification system, protective custody and policies & procedures within CSNSW.

During part of my professional career within CSNSW, both as a Deputy Superintendent of

Inmate Classification and Assistant Director of Inmate Placement & Classification, I was

responsible for the classification of numerous inmates that had been convicted of murder

and manslaughter. This involved assigning the inmate an initial classification rating when

first sentenced and during the course of the inmates incarceration as a member of the

Serious Offenders Review Council (SORC) and reviewing and recommending the

regression and progression of a convicted murderers within the correctional system.

From a perspective of initially when an offender is convicted of murder and commences

his/her custodial sentence within the correctional system, the inmate requires a detailed

case management plan to be developed in order to manage this offender that is

incarcerated for the next 15, 20, 30 or 40 years of their life or even for the rest of their

natural life if sentenced to a term of Life imprisonment.

As a rule, it was extremely important to have access to the 'Judges Sentencing Remarks'

(JSR) when assigning a classification rating and developing a case plan for the offender.

The SORC have set guidelines when an offender who is classed as a Serious Offender

and is convicted of murder, is able to progress through the NSW correctional classification

system in line with detailed policy and procedures that are under pinned by legislation.

However, a number of concerns arise and disputes take place when a Serious Offender

that is convicted of murder can be considered for release back into the community under

parole supervision and invariably raises media attention, political interest and concerns by

the victims family and community in general.

On too many instances, the sentence imposed for murder does not reflect community

expectation and allows advocates to demand for longer sentences to be imposed by the

courts for the offence of murder.

I have classified offenders that have been convicted of multiple murders and those

convicted of one murder. Individual circumstances are taken into consideration by the

sentencing Judge as to the relevant facts involved in the case, re: plea of guilty, has the

body been found, medical and psychiatric reports, showing remorse, etc.

When dealing with offenders that have been convicted and sentenced for the offence of

murder, requires detailed information to be recorded within the JSR, that ultimately assists

corrections staff and the parole authority to ensure that every risk factor has been taken

into consideration before allowing the offender to progress to a minimum security

classification and engage in external leave programs and to eventually be considered for

release on parole supervision with specific conditions to comply with.

I was responsible for contributing to the progression of serious offenders during my role

within the Inmate Classification Branch, by providing a submission that would allow

serious offenders to be staged and progress to various security & classification levels at

different time frames of their non-parole period.

This staged progression allowed the careful and structured management of the offender in

custody and also provided a clear pathway for the inmate to follow and be able to achieve

during their custodial sentence.

On to many occasions, the release of a murderer from custody upon serving their nonparole

period and/or when into their additional term, has created significant heartache for

the victims family and public outrage, along with a media frenzy. Recent events such as

the future release of triple murderer 'Berwyn Rees' (27 Years NPP) or child murderer

'Michael Guider' (12 years NPP), highlights these very concerns and can never by

understood and accepted by the community and that of the victims families.

Should there be categories established for the offence of murder that allow for specific

non-parole periods, subject to individual circumstances of the offender and factors

involving the offence. Currently there are specific guidelines contained within Section

of murder.

Rather then having specific non-parole periods, there should be in legislation the ability to

scale a non-parole period from 20 to 50 years, with the option to impose a Life parole

period and further options of imposing a sliding 10 to 20 year parole period.

The JSR should clearly indicate by the Sentencing Judge at the time, the prospects, if any,

of rehabilitation and release and reintegration back into the community. The old term of

offenders that are in custody in New South Wales and were incorporated within a JSR

/Judges Comments and recorded on the warrant of commitment, should be replaced in

To sentence an offender for the offence of Murder and remove that offender from society

for a significant period of time, sometimes involving 15, 20 or 30 years and then expect

that the offender can return back to society fully rehabilitated, places a significant amount

of responsibility and expectation on CSNSW. CSNSW is often criticised for the

management of long term serious offenders and are presented with obstacles when

attempting to progress these types of offenders into pre-external leave programs, prior to release from custody.

Yet, when the offender has engaged in specific aspects of their case management plan,

addressed their offending behaviour via targeted therapeutic programs and achieved

participation in the pre-external leave programs, they are still challenged by the legal

process and associated external pressures outside of the correctional system.

I fully support that an offender who is convicted of murder, should be very closely

monitored whilst in custody to ensure that they are complying with detailed requirements

involving employment, engage in targeted offending programs and to be of good behaviour

and conduct, during their incarceration. There should be zero-tolerance in any adverse or

negative behaviour displayed by the offender whilst in custody. At the same time, if the

offender has fulfilled all of his/her obligations as set down by the Courts and Corrective

Services, then support should be given to allow reintegration back into the community.

Establishing of Categories of Murder and a two tier sentencing structure, such as;

Categories and scale of seriousness:

Aggravating circumstances that would apply to this category (examples only);

as, sexual assault, robbery, arson, assassination, kidnapping;

destruction;

murdered to prevent the performance of their duties, and;

1. The situation of a first time young adult offender between the ages of 18 to 25 that

is convicted of a murder as opposed to an offender who is over the age of 60 with

the same category offence.

Factors such as likelihood of the offender being released to the community after

serving 20 to 50 year non-parole period and will be in the age bracket of 45 to 50.

2. The offender who is 60 years of age and over and has served 20 to 50 year nonparole

period and being released to the community in the age bracket of 80 and

over.

These two examples can vary significantly and one can take on the view that when a

young adult offender serves a significant period in custody for murder and is still able to be

released back into the community at a reasonable adult age, may successfully be able to

return as a law abiding citizen and hopefully never re-offend and return to custody.

As opposed to an elderly offender who may well be in his late 60's, 70's or 80's and has

already served a significant period in custody, what risk would this offender now pose to

the community in this age bracket ?

Reference is made to a publication by NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research –

Sentencing snapshot: Homicide and related offences – issue paper no.76 February 2012;

When an offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for murder, Corrective Services

NSW is responsible for the housing, management, care and rehabilitation of that offender

for a significant set period of time as determined by the courts. In conjunction with the

State Parole authority, these two state sanctioned authorities have a significant

responsibility and role to play, in order to ensure that the offender is not only detained in a

safe and humane manner and environment, not posing a risk to other inmates, not posing

a risk to correctional staff, not posing a risk to the correctional centre and not posing a risk

to the community, but must also ensure that the offender is suitable to be released back

into the community under some type of supervision for a determined period as set down by

the sentencing Judge.

So to just expect that a Judge sentences an offender to a 25 year non-parole period for the

offence of murder and then expectations that the offender will return to society

rehabilitated and as law abiding citizen, does not always eventuate as intended.

A convicted murderer in custody does not necessarily have to engage in a violent offender

program if the victim was a spouse.

A convicted murderer will need to engage in a specific violent offender therapeutic

program, where the offence involved significant violence, such as (robbery with a weapon,

or physical violence by the offender), such as in the case of an armed robbery or robbery

of a person/s, business or organisation, etc.

Reference is made to: Judicial Commission of NSW – Sentenced Homicides in NSW

1994-2001;

If considering an increase in the standard non-parole period of murder, I provide the

following example of an actual case involving an offender committing separate murders

and serving two separate sentences. Not identifying the offender by name, Offender X had

been convicted of a murder and served a relatively short non-parole period and then being

released on parole.

Then the unimaginable occurred again, Offender X whilst now living in the community,

attempting an armed robbery at a service station, murders an overseas student, that was

working part time at the service station. Offender X receives a non-parole period again for

the conviction of murder, this is now his second murder conviction.

With no family in Sydney (NSW) to speak and raise their anguish and heartache on the

victims behalf, no media to detail and report Offender X's shocking criminal history and

now being convicted for a second time for the offence of murder and again only given a

specific non-parole period.

The victims family in this case does not have any bearing and unfortunately the courts

have allowed the opportunity for Offender X to be released again into the community at

some point, after committing two separate murders of innocent people.

This is totally unacceptable and there needs to be some form of accountability and

mechanism that will not allow this scenario to occur ever again. The victims family,

regardless if they voice their concerns or not and regardless if they reside in NSW,

Interstate or Overseas, need to be represented in a more robust and responsible format by

the Judiciary (Prosecution and Judge).

As I have outlined within this submission, I would strongly support that the standard nonparole

period for murder be increased. However, there needs to be a greater emphasis on

the structure of the sentence being imposed for the offence of murder. As we are fully

aware, years pass and at some stage the offender that has served 12, 15, 20 or 30 years

becomes eligible for release on parole.

By introducing a sliding scale for the 'Category Two Murder' offence, this will enable the

Sentencing Judge and Judicial system the opportunity to establish a sentence that clearly

reflects the seriousness of the offence and the impact that it has had on the victims family

and the community.

However, just as it is important to reflect on the impact of the victims family and the

concerns of the community when this offence has occurred, it is also important to consider

that the offender at some stage will be released from custody, due to the sentence

imposed by the Judge.

It is crucial that both the keeper of the offender (CSNSW) and the SPA are actively

engaging in a pro-active and on-going management plan for the whole of sentence of the

offender.

By increasing the non-parole period for the offence of murder, does in fact require a more

whole of sentence approach and planning. We tend to lose site of the purpose and

It would be of immense benefit to the authorities (CSNSW and SPA) that are managing the

offender for a significant period of both incarceration and community supervision, that the

Sentencing Judge specifies set milestone dates that the offender must have achieved and

complied with, this will ensure that the rehabilitation aspects are achieved. This will require

a collaborative approach involving the Judiciary, CSNSW and SPA.

If there is to be a greater emphasis to ensure that an offender serving a sentence for

murder is being held accountable for their actions, recognising the harm done to the

victims of the crime and the community and deterring others from committing the same

offence, then collectively there needs to be a number of changes beginning with the

sentencing structure and requirements.

Should the Sentencing Council require additional information, wish to have a more formal

discussion or to provide further comment in relation to this submission, please do not

hesitate to contact me.

Forwarded for your consideration,

Domenic Pezzano JP

Within my previous submission, I provided an example of issues relating to ‘Victims Impact

Statement’ and their was no reference within the Consultation Paper about this

information.

I reiterate the following information provided in my previous submission;

I do not support a mandatory minimum penalty for this offence. Rationale for this view is;

This option would be left open to criticism by the public, community groups and political

representatives. As it would be a preferred option for a Judge to impose in these

circumstance, thus removing the onus of responsibility to take into account the gravity of

the offence, such as a manslaughter that occurred as a result of an aggravated home

burglary, invasion or robbery, where their was a loss of life.

Their have been a number of instances whereby the victim has later died following the

attack, sometimes weeks or months later in hospital from injuries sustained during the

assault / attack. This should not remove the seriousness of what had originally occurred

during the commissioning of the crime.

It would be an easy option to take, without considering the gravity of the crime and the

devastation that it has had on the victims families and the community in general.

I would support an increase of the maximum penalty of manslaughter to 30 years.

It is my recommendation that their should be amendments to the imposing of a Life

Sentence for murder as I outlined within my previous submission, they are;

Their should be changes to encompass a Life Term for a ‘law enforcement officer’ and not

only a ‘Police Officer’.

Specifically a ‘Correctional Officer’ would fall within this category.

In NSW we have had a number of Correctional Officers who have been killed whilst

performing their duties. They are a sworn officer of the crown and on a daily basis have to

deal with very dangerous and volatile situations within the prison system.

Unlike Police Officers and Fire & Rescue Officers which receive a lot of public accolades,

praise and their actions are readily seen by members of the public. Correctional Officer

duties are very broad, either working within the confined walls/fences of a prison, escorting

inmates outside the walls of the prisons and perform these duties with limited resources

and under extremely dangerous conditions. And as a result of the volatile environment that

they work within, are victims to fatal assaults and violent acts.

Their has been 12 recorded deaths of correctional officers in NSW. The most recent was in

2007 when a senior correctional officer was violently attacked by an inmate in December

2006, however died later in hospital in January 2007.

Given the risk that front line correctional officers face in their employment, dealing with very violent and dangerous inmates within the prison and whist escorting inmates external to the prison walls, their needs to be some form of deterrent which ensures that inmates will not attack/ambush a correctional officer.

It is my opinion that there is minimal difference in the responsibilities and risk that correctional officers have, as compared to that of police officers when dealing with dangerous and violent offenders;

Changes to Legislation would be as follows;

NSW Correctional Officers killed in the line of duty:

2007: Wayne Smith, Silverwater. Attacked and bashed by Carl Edward Little while

escorting him to a new cell. Succumbed to his injuries six weeks later.

1997: Geoffrey Pearce, Long Bay. Stabbed with a HIV-positive needle by Graham Farlow

in 1990 and died from AIDS eight years later.

1979: John Mewburn, Long Bay. Bashed to death by convicted murderer Peter Schneidas.

1974: Carl Faber, Parramatta. Bashed to death by a group of prisoners during an

unsuccessful escape bid. Died from his injuries four years later.

1959: Cecil Mills, Emu Plains. Bashed to death by prisoners during an attempted escape.

1959: Albert Hedges, Berrima. Bashed and locked in a shed during an escape attempt. He

survived and after rehabilitation returned to work. However his injuries were so

severe he was medically retired and passed away several years later.

1958: Alan Cooper, Bathurst. Bashed to death by two prisoners at the front gate of the jail

during a failed escape.

I have detailed in my earlier submission the changes to imposing a ‘Life Sentence’ and the

category of offences that would attract an automatic Life Sentence.

Category 1 – Life Sentence, should remain as a natural Life Sentence, with no non-parole

Reference is made to points 6.21 and 6.22 of the Consultation Paper;

I do not support these comments. The reasons that an offender was sentenced to a ‘Life

Term’ of imprisonment, is due to the seriousness of the murder/s that have been

committed and circumstances of the crime that occurred.

period in order to be provide them with an opportunity to return to the community as a law

abiding citizen after being rehabilitated in custody is unacceptable.

We would be presented with the same situation and scenario as a ‘Berwyn Rees’, that was

paroled after murdering three people, this is totally unacceptable to the community and a

grave injustice to the victims and their families.

Reference is made to comments by Judge Hulme in the sentencing of Alan O’Connor –

Dubbo Supreme Court for a triple murder;

I have previously in my submission referred to the cases of triple murderer 'Berwyn Rees'

(27 Years non-parole period) and child murderer 'Michael Guider' (12 years non-parole

period) and the concerns from the victims families, general public, community groups and

politicians that were raised at the time, when these two offenders were being considered

for release back into the community.

I reiterate, that if a ‘Life Sentence’ was imposed for an offender by the courts, their should

be no option available to introduce a non-parole period with that sentence. An offender that

has been convicted of a horrendous crime involving murder/s in the following categories,

should never be released back into the community;

To suggest otherwise, is not considering the information that the Consultation Paper has

stated in point: 1.2;

If a non-parole period is to be considered for an offence of Murder, then it should fall into

the ‘Category 2 Sentencing Structure’, that I have identified within my earlier submission.

During my professional career when dealing with offenders that were sentenced to a term

of ‘Life’ prior to changes in legislation and truth in sentencing laws in 1999, I can refer to

two particular offenders that had been convicted of murder (a partner in one case and a

spouse in another case) and were sentenced to ‘Life’ under the previous legislation. They

subsequently had their ‘Life’ sentence re-determined and served a specified non-parole

period and successfully were released back to the community under a parole supervision

for a set period. These ‘Lifers’ had achieved a minimum security rating within the

correctional system and had engaged in appropriate rehabilitative programs in custody,

prior to release back into the community under parole supervision.

However, these individual cases did not fall within the ‘Category 1 Sentencing Structure’

that I have identified within this submission. Their is no doubt that the imposing of a Life

Sentence is an extreme measure and should only be adopted in the most heinous cases,

as I have identified.

The rationale that was used within point 6.31 of the Consultation Paper is incorrect in my

opinion, it states;

I have identified in detail within my earlier submission of the need to incorporate a holistic

approach of the case management of a serious offender in custody that has been

convicted of Murder / Manslaughter in order to ensure that they are suitable to be

considered for release back into the community under strict parole conditions after

completing the necessary components of their case management plan and addressing

their offending behaviour.

When an offender has not complied with their set case plan and not having addressed

their offending behaviour in custody, will as a natural procedure and safeguard not be

considered for release on parole by the Serious Offenders Review Council and will not be

granted parole by the State Parole Authority

To suggest that by imposing a non-parole period to a offender with a Life Sentence is

going to ensure that they are provided an opportunity to be rehabilitated and are deemed

suitable to return back to society, is in contradiction with an offender being originally given

a determined non-parole period. They are two totally different sentences, that should be

kept separate for obvious reasons and as outlined within this submission.

In conclusion, if the offender has a ‘Life Sentence’ imposed, he/she is not eligible for

release back to the community, as they have have engaged in the most horrendous crime

against another human/s and this would be reflected in the Judges Sentencing Remarks.

Why, as an educated and civilised society would we consider allowing a non-parole period

for an offender given a natural ‘Life Sentence’ to be set. This procedure would not be

taking into account the concerns of the victims families, public and general community

groups. The protection and safety of the public should be the first priority and not the

rehabilitation opportunities of the offender in the cases that fall within the ‘Category 1

Sentencing’ for Murder.

I have detailed within this submission the two main differences in considering a sentence

length for the offence of murder.

It should not be the responsibility of the victims families, public, community groups and

political parties to ensure that the correct sentence is imposed for an offender that has

committed an offence of murder or manslaughter. But rather the judicial system, should be

responsible that it has taken into account the devastating impact that these types of

offences have on the victims families and the community, together with applying the laws

of the State. To suggest that community/public expectation is to emotional and is ill

informed, is not educated, have poor knowledge or unaware of trends in crime or inmate

management is an insult to each individual member of the public.

it states the following;

It would be most useful and important to know if their was any appeal against the

inadequacy of the sentence imposed (bond with supervision / suspended sentences) that

was lodged against these specific manslaughter cases and what was the result of the

appeals ?

I would strongly support that alternatives to imprisonment should be available for

manslaughter offenders. The offence of manslaughter can be as a result of many

situations and circumstances involving the crime. The fact that the courts have found it

suitable to impose a bond with supervision and a suspended sentence, clearly indicates

that some form of sentence was required to be issued to the offender, whilst at the same

time taking into account the unique circumstances of the actual crime.

The fact that we now have within NSW as a sentencing option of ‘Intensive Corrections

Order’ (ICO), should in my professional opinion be strongly considered as a sentencing

option for manslaughter, where it has been found and established that their was

‘provocation, self defence’.

Assault’.

I would strongly support that the Sentencing Council of NSW consider an ‘Intensive

Corrections Order’ be legislated in order that the offence of Manslaughter can be

considered as a sentencing option, only in the extreme cases where the courts were

considering an alternative to full time imprisonment by way of a bond with supervision,

community based order or a suspended sentence. The only concerns at present with

imposing an ICO, is that the order is limited to a maximum of a two year period under

current legislation.

This option would at least provide some form of conditions being imposed on the offender

in order to take into consideration any community concerns and also maintaining public

confidence in the judicial process. The ICO would be imposed with a view that the offender

has some form of electronic monitoring and curfew being imposed, if a risk assessment

deems it appropriate and necessary. In the event of a breach occurring whilst on an ICO,

the offender can have the ICO revoked and serve the balance as a full time custodial

sentence. This sentencing option should only be utilised in extreme cases as determined

by the evidence and circumstances of the specific offence and matter before the court.

I have detailed within my submission and additional information in relation to the

Consultation Paper, my rationale and objections to imposing a non-parole period to a Life

term Sentence.

It appears that their is a strong theme from the Sentencing Council within the ‘Consultation

Paper’ to support changes to a Life Sentence and either provide a non-parole period or

allow a Lifer to seek a re-determination of the Life sentence.

As a civilised and educated society, do we really want to even consider releasing back to

the community, offenders such as;

Their are very specific reasons that a 'Life Sentence’ is imposed on an offender for the

offence of murder. To suggest that they are punished whilst serving a sentence of Life,

because the offender has no hope of being re-integrated back into society has been

fortified once the offender has committed such a heinous crime on another person/s.

It is extremely important as a civilised and educated society, that we do not loose focus of

why a determined prison term was imposed by a Judge, particularly a Life Term.

The following are excerpts from the Judges sentencing comments during sentencing for

individual offenders sentenced to a Life Term in NSW;

Sef Gonzales – Life Sentence – Three Murders

Alan O’Connor – Life Sentence – Three Murders

Roger Dean – Life Sentence – Eleven Murders

Andrew Garforth – Life Sentence – One Murder

Robert Xie – Life Sentence – Five Murders

Matthew Harris – Life Sentence – Three Murders

I have specifically identified these nine cases of offenders committing a single murder or

multiple murders to highlight the seriousness of the crimes that these individual offenders

have inflicted on the victims and society.

More recently we witnessed the release to parole of Berwyn Rees. He was convicted of

three murders including that of a NSW Police Officer and sentenced to Life in April 1981.

Under the current laws in NSW, he would have been automatically considered for

sentencing to natural Life because of the murder of a Police Officer.

I would think that society today would not expect or even anticipate that an offender such

as Rees be granted the opportunity to be released back into the community. We certainly

do not want to be faced by this type of situation ever again in the future.

Berwyn Rees – Three Life Terms – Three murders.

What is very disturbing when reading these types of studies, is the focus being on the

offender that has been sentenced to a natural term of Life and the highlighted onerous

conditions that the offender will endure whilst serving this category of sentence, by way of

destructing his morale and not being able to be released back into the community after

serving a specific period in custody.

It is a dangerous path to focus on the rehabilitation prospects of an offender that has

committed such horrendous crimes and imposed devastation on the families, friends of the

victim and general community and loose track on what had occurred at the time of the

commission of these crime/s. The priority for corrections in these particular cases is the

safe and humane custody of the offender.

Their will certainly be cases and situations, that an offender is sentenced to a specified

non-parole period for the offence of murder and still be able to have an opportunity to be

released back into the community in order to live as a law abiding citizen. Their are many

individual cases of this situation occurring and with success.

I reiterate that it will be the judicial process and the sentencing of these individuals that will

determine if they are given that opportunity of one day being released from prison.

If we are circumventing this judicial process in order to not burden the offender whilst

serving a natural Life sentence and put aside the irreversible damage and impact that the

offenders crime has had on innocent people, then we will continue to be faced with

outrage by the community, which should be protected at all costs. The saying that a

‘person is sent to prison as their punishment and not to sent to prison for punishment’ is

what should be applied when an offender is incarcerated and in particular for natural ‘Life

Term’ inmates.

I will now refer to three cases that I am very familiar with and had involvement with these

individuals management whilst in custody.

These individuals were convicted for the offence of murder and conspiracy to murder.

In summary, it is my professional opinion, that the current sentening system does work.

What can be determined from the three above cases involving murder, where their was a

significant public interest involved and community outrage, that the courts when imposing

a specific non-parole period for the offender, has allowed in these three cases the

opportunity (rehabilitation) for the offenders to not only progress through the correctional

system in relation to program participation, employment and classification and to be

eventually released back into the community.

In the matters of Kalajzich and Pillar, both of these offenders have returned to the

community to live as law abiding citizens. In the case of Lim and Seng, both of these

offenders have served their non-parole period / minimum term and partly into their

additional term, and then were deported back to their country of origin.

Reference is made to a document titled;

www.publicdefenders.nsw.gov.au/Documents/murder-accessorial-liability.pdf

This document which has been prepared by the ‘Public Defenders’ and details the

sentences imposed on offenders for the offence of murder and other category of crimes.

This clearly indicates the consideration of providing specific minimum terms / non-parole

periods for offenders within this category of offence and provides the offender the

opportunity for rehabilitation prospects and eventual release back into the community

under parole supervision. It also indicates the seriousness in a number of cases, whereby

the Judge has imposed a ‘Life’ sentence.

The courts have an option of imposing a Life sentence for the extreme and worst cases

and as identified through out this submission, is reflective of the need to demonstrate

retribution, deterrence and protection of society.

Their is also the option of imposing a specified non-parole period / minimum term for the

offence of murder, as identified in the three cases involving ‘Kalajzich, Pillar, Lim and Seng’.

Right or wrong and whether we agree or disagree with the custodial sentences that were

imposed in these three cases and others detailed within the ‘Public Defenders list, they

were applied by the courts via a judicial process.

It is my recommendation that we do not amend any of the sentencing options for murder

that would involve a ‘Life sentence with a non-parole period’ or any ‘redetermination of an

existing Life sentence’. We currently have a system that is not only fair and just, but is

operating effectively and most importantly it allows justice to be served and protects the community.

Forwarded for your consideration,

Domenic Pezzano JP

3 February 2020