Domestic violence prevention sector rejects NT government's mandatory sentencing bill

Domestic violence prevention groups in the Northern Territory have voiced overwhelming opposition to a further strengthening of mandatory sentencing laws, with one arguing the NT government's proposal is more about "appearing to take action" than genuine reform.

Frontline services have also raised concerns that safeguards in the draft legislation would not adequately protect victims of violence who kill their partners in extraordinary circumstances.

It comes as NT Attorney-General Marie-Clare Boothby, who announced the change last month, has appeared to backtrack on earlier statements about how far the laws would go, and as her department has contradicted her claim the change would serve as a deterrent to violence.

Under the bill, which is set to be debated in parliament next week, the NT's mandatory minimum prison sentence for murder would increase from 20 to 25 years in cases of domestic violence.

All submissions from frontline domestic violence and legal services to the parliamentary committee examining the bill, which have now been published online, recommended against the bill being passed.

In its submission, the North Australia Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) wrote that the bill would not make victims safer and detracted from "urgently needed" evidence-based reform.

"Increasing the minimum non-parole period by 5 years is unlikely to prevent intimate partner homicide, because this type of offending is rarely premeditated," NAAJA chief executive Ben Grimes said.

In a particularly critical submission, the head of Women's Safety Services of Central Australia (WoSSCA), Larissa Ellis, wrote of the sector's "deep concern and disappointment" at only hearing about the policy when it was announced to the media.

Like others, Ms Ellis's submission made reference to a recent major domestic violence inquest into the deaths of four Indigenous women in the NT.

She said despite Ms Boothby citing that inquest as the rationale for the proposed change, the NT coroner had made no recommendation to increase mandatory sentencing.

"If the severity and profound harm experienced by victims, families and communities is to be treated as a genuine priority then meaningful consultation with those directly affected must occur before legislative amendments are advanced — particularly where those changes are framed as being made 'for them',' Ms Ellis wrote.

"We believe that this amendment is more of a symbol of victim-centred justice, more about public denunciation and appearing to take action than about providing a victim's family more power in the judicial process, or honouring the life of a victim, or ultimately preventing future intimate partner homicides and creating greater safety for women and children across the territory."

The ABC has confirmed the government did not consult its own Aboriginal Advisory Board on Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence about the policy.

Out of a dozen submissions made to the scrutiny committee, only two expressed support for the bill to be passed in its current form — one written by federal Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and the other by Melbourne-based law professor Mirko Bagaric.

Safeguards inadequate, submissions say

The Country Liberal Party-dominated legislative scrutiny committee is due to hand its report on the draft bill to the government on Wednesday.

The committee held a half-hour public hearing on the bill last month, but heard only from representatives from the attorney-general's department.

Under questioning from independent MLA Justine Davis, a department officer said she did not have evidence suggesting increased mandatory minimums would act as a deterrent to violence and said the purpose of the law change was instead to reflect the gravity of the crime.

Most submissions to the scrutiny committee raised concerns about the "exceptional circumstances" provision in the bill, which is supposed to prevent the mandatory minimum from applying to victims of violence.

Under the current draft, exceptional circumstances apply if an offender can prove they are otherwise a person of good character and unlikely to reoffend, and that the victim's conduct substantially mitigates the offender's actions.

In its submission, the National Network of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls said the good character test could disqualify victims who had suffered systemic disadvantage, with Indigenous women most at risk.

Government backtracks on 'loopholes'

Absent from the draft bill are any provisions relating to lesser offences, such as manslaughter, which the NT attorney-general last month suggested had improperly allowed offenders to avoid life sentences despite being responsible for their partner's death.

In response to questioning at her original February press conference, before the legislation was provided to the media, Ms Boothby said the NT government was "closing all of those loopholes that cause cases to end up in that situation".

At the time, a spokesperson for the attorney-general said the scrutiny committee would report "on those things".

Asked about the missing provisions in a more recent press conference, Ms Boothby did not answer directly and said: "What this legislation addresses is the fact that we are making it the most serious and longest of sentences that someone can get … that is the very specific change I've brought forward in parliament".

In a joint submission, the territory's three specialist women's legal services also told the committee they wished to stress that "current levels of investment are manifestly inadequate to address the domestic, family and sexual violence crisis" in the Northern Territory".