'Guilty, Your Honour'

Recent Legislative Developments on the Guilty Plea Discount and an Australian Capital Territory Case Study on its Operation

Elizabeth Wren, Lorana BARTELS

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The overwhelming majority of defendants in Australian criminal courts plead guilty and most Australian jurisdictions include a guilty plea in their sentencing legislation as a mitigating factor. However, the application of this reduction varies significantly. In an attempt to provide a better under- standing of this aspect of sentencing, this article examines the legislation and case law on guilty pleas, with a particular focus on the Australian Capital Territory. The article contextualises this discussion by examining the High Court’s position on sentence reductions for guilty pleas, as well as the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal’s guideline judgment in R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383. Recent key legislative amendments in relation to quantifying guilty pleas are then discussed, revealing the often subtle but meaningful differences in the legislation across Australia. This is followed by a case study analysis of 300 recent cases in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, which provides important insight into the practical operation of the discount in a jurisdiction that has traditionally seen little sentencing research. The article concludes with some observations on future directions for policy and practice.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)361-384
Number of pages24
JournalAdelaide Law Review
Volume35
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

honor
legislation
jurisdiction
case law
amendment
Supreme Court
appeal

Cite this

@article{23de53d420894acdb845fe53143d0a5b,
title = "'Guilty, Your Honour': Recent Legislative Developments on the Guilty Plea Discount and an Australian Capital Territory Case Study on its Operation",
abstract = "The overwhelming majority of defendants in Australian criminal courts plead guilty and most Australian jurisdictions include a guilty plea in their sentencing legislation as a mitigating factor. However, the application of this reduction varies significantly. In an attempt to provide a better under- standing of this aspect of sentencing, this article examines the legislation and case law on guilty pleas, with a particular focus on the Australian Capital Territory. The article contextualises this discussion by examining the High Court’s position on sentence reductions for guilty pleas, as well as the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal’s guideline judgment in R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383. Recent key legislative amendments in relation to quantifying guilty pleas are then discussed, revealing the often subtle but meaningful differences in the legislation across Australia. This is followed by a case study analysis of 300 recent cases in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, which provides important insight into the practical operation of the discount in a jurisdiction that has traditionally seen little sentencing research. The article concludes with some observations on future directions for policy and practice.",
keywords = "Sentencing, guilty plea, Australia, Australian Capital Territory",
author = "Elizabeth Wren and Lorana BARTELS",
year = "2015",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "361--384",
journal = "Adelaide Law Review",
issn = "0065-1915",
number = "2",

}

'Guilty, Your Honour' : Recent Legislative Developments on the Guilty Plea Discount and an Australian Capital Territory Case Study on its Operation. / Wren, Elizabeth; BARTELS, Lorana.

In: Adelaide Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2015, p. 361-384.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - 'Guilty, Your Honour'

T2 - Recent Legislative Developments on the Guilty Plea Discount and an Australian Capital Territory Case Study on its Operation

AU - Wren, Elizabeth

AU - BARTELS, Lorana

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - The overwhelming majority of defendants in Australian criminal courts plead guilty and most Australian jurisdictions include a guilty plea in their sentencing legislation as a mitigating factor. However, the application of this reduction varies significantly. In an attempt to provide a better under- standing of this aspect of sentencing, this article examines the legislation and case law on guilty pleas, with a particular focus on the Australian Capital Territory. The article contextualises this discussion by examining the High Court’s position on sentence reductions for guilty pleas, as well as the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal’s guideline judgment in R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383. Recent key legislative amendments in relation to quantifying guilty pleas are then discussed, revealing the often subtle but meaningful differences in the legislation across Australia. This is followed by a case study analysis of 300 recent cases in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, which provides important insight into the practical operation of the discount in a jurisdiction that has traditionally seen little sentencing research. The article concludes with some observations on future directions for policy and practice.

AB - The overwhelming majority of defendants in Australian criminal courts plead guilty and most Australian jurisdictions include a guilty plea in their sentencing legislation as a mitigating factor. However, the application of this reduction varies significantly. In an attempt to provide a better under- standing of this aspect of sentencing, this article examines the legislation and case law on guilty pleas, with a particular focus on the Australian Capital Territory. The article contextualises this discussion by examining the High Court’s position on sentence reductions for guilty pleas, as well as the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal’s guideline judgment in R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383. Recent key legislative amendments in relation to quantifying guilty pleas are then discussed, revealing the often subtle but meaningful differences in the legislation across Australia. This is followed by a case study analysis of 300 recent cases in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, which provides important insight into the practical operation of the discount in a jurisdiction that has traditionally seen little sentencing research. The article concludes with some observations on future directions for policy and practice.

KW - Sentencing

KW - guilty plea

KW - Australia

KW - Australian Capital Territory

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 361

EP - 384

JO - Adelaide Law Review

JF - Adelaide Law Review

SN - 0065-1915

IS - 2

ER -