Justice Ann Lyons: 'Benjamin Milward, I sentence you to life imprsonment ...'

At 10:35AM on the 26^th of October 2016, Queensland’s Justice Ann Lyons, looked a convicted killer in the eyes and said, ‘Benjamin Milward, I sentence you to life imprisonment for the murder of Sophie collombet’. Unusually, Justice Lyons’ sentencing remarks were recorded and later broadcast on television.

Compact, bewigged, dignified and thoroughly prepared, she appeared fiercely restrained as she passed sentence. She read from notes, looking up periodically to fix Milward with her dark-eyed stare. Only once or twice her otherwise measured voice betrayed the emotion that boiled within her and that judges, men and women, strive to mask from the public gaze.

            Her remarks were not broadcast because of the seriousness of the crime itself. Sadly, the brutality of the offence and the utter devastation wrought by it are far from unique. Every year our justice system deals with such tragedies. But here we have an attractive, vibrant student, a visitor to our country, whose life was senselessly and grotesquely ended. The crime moved Brisbane city and the whole state. Disquiet reverberated half-way around the world to the victim’s home in France. At a time when our efforts to end violence against women have been redoubled, a matter of this kind warranted recording and broadcast.

            Another equally valid reason is the judicial system’s efforts to explain the sentencing process. This is not a new thing. Judges have always been required to explain their sentences in open court, and by and large they make every effort to do this clearly.

But there are some problems.

Firstly, criminal sentencing is an inherently complex task. It involves the careful weighing of multiple, often competing factors. Many sentencing considerations, while familiar to criminal lawyers, are foreign to lay people. Not all of the concepts can be easily described and explained. Worse still, busy judges must often deliver multiple sentences in a single crowded day. Inevitably their capacity to keep things clear will sometimes wane.

Secondly, most members of the public are unlikely to be in court to hear sentencing remarks. If they are there they will be listening to their own sentence or those of a friend or loved one. Such participants or spectators are not in the best position to critically appreciate the process, let alone explain it to others.

Thirdly, journalists who report the courts are ill-equipped to accurately record and carefully explain the sentences they report upon. The time pressures they face and their legitimate interest in the ‘story’ of the matter, mean they are usually unsuited to educating the public about sentencing.

It is for this reason that recording and broadcasting selected sentences should play an important role in informing the public about sentencing. Broadcasting carefully drafted and delivered sentencing remarks will inform public debate in a way that politicians puff and bluster can never do.

Happily, the current Queensland government has demonstrated a commitment to sensible sentencing reform based on informed debate. Clear evidence for this is found in the re-establishment of the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council. The council will consist of up to 12 members of the public who have expertise or experience relevant to its functions. Its functions include researching and publishing about sentencing matters, giving the Court of Appeal its views about guideline judgments, advising the Attorney-General on sentencing matters and obtaining the communities views on sentencing.

Perhaps in time the council and broadcasting of selected sentences will inform public debate, and build confidence in this central and important feature of our criminal justice system.