I had my car stolen & wrecked by a 17 yr old youth. The magistrate awarded no restitution & placed the youth on 12 mths probation. I wrote to the Qld Law Reform Comm. & to the Attorney Gen. Office querying this decision & these were the replies.

The role of the Qld Law Reform Commission is to review those
areas of the law that are referred to it by the Attorney-General to see
whether the law should be changed. the Commission does not have a project to review the law in relation to the sentencing of offenders, I regret that it is unable to address
your concerns.
Yours sincerely
Dir.
Qld Law Reform Commission

Part of the reply from the Attorney General's Office;

The determination of the appropriate penalty for someone who has broken the law is a difficult function. The sentencing process requires a balance of often competing interests. Such interests taken into account when determining the appropriate penalty for someone who has broken the law include issues of deterrence, rehabilitation of the offender, punishment and retribution. The attitudes of the community and standards expected of society are reflected in the penalties of the courts.The circumstances of the offender, including youth, are important when considering the appropriate penalty. Courts give considerable regard to tailoring a sentence aimed at rehabilitating an offender. .. courts can only exercise their discretion to order compensation or restitution if there is a real prospect that the offender has capacity to pay.
With respect to matters prosecuted by police in the Magistrates Court, there is an avenue of appeal if the police prosecutor is of the view that the sentence imposed was too lenient. Only the police have a right of appeal in this situation. The victim has no right to appeal a decision of a Magistrate.
The Attorney-General is aware that this response is not what you had hoped for, and he has asked me to tell you that he is sorry that he cannot help you any further.

Sen. Policy Advisor

If those comments sound reasonable to anyone please comment.

Unfortunately you are talking about so called justice Australia wide.
Revolving door justice has been a problem for all my life.
It seems to be based on the costs of confinement more than justice.
While it is true confinement may not be called for in every case some get more chances than a bad race horse.
I think just maybe if a real chance of prison or such was known to be the result less crime would take place.
Some who hand down these verdicts commit a greater crime against the victim than the criminals.

The determination of the appropriate penalty for someone who has broken the law is a difficult function.

I would have thought that paying for the damage would be the most appropriate, simple & moral sentence. It was only $5000.- which really wouldn't be excessive for an employed 17 year old. The money isn't so much the issue. . It's the message that's being sent to offenders by the utterly out of touch mentality of the justice system. The least the magistrate could have done is to impose community service. I am sure her ruling does not reflect the community's attitude. Police were dismayed when the youth left the court grinning from ear to ear.

Dear Individual,

It would appear that the wrong message is being sent out to young offenders. There should be a deterant to stop them from re-offending.

I can't understand the reasoning of the magistrate in this case.
Was your car insured? Was this a first offence? Did the youngster have the means to compensate you for what he had done? Were there any
extenuating circumstances that would have influenced the magistrate?

Sounds like you got a raw deal - and it doesn't make sense as to why?

A couple of years ago, my young son bought an old 4WD Hilux ute, fitted with those big nobly off road tires.

A couple of days later, & before he had got round to insuring it, he had an accident. In the wet, those tyres are not too good, & he slid into the back of one car, glancing off that, into another.
It could not have been too bad, as he drove the Hilux home.

However, 3 months later he got the bill, from the other peoples insurance company, for $30,000. I think they have had a bit of a lend of him, but, as he's in the navy, he was not in a possition to fight them. He has paid $20,000, & will pay the rest this year.

There was no criminality here, just a silly young kid, making a couple of costly mistakes.

Isn't it interesting, that the criminal gets off scott free, but the genuine, if silly kid, pays through the nose?

As you said, "justice?".

What we need is Compulsory third party property insurance - not just third party.

Whilst this would be tough on low income families (who may have to be subsidised to get it up and running) the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.

The fact that a driver doesn't have a licence or is under aged or is breaking the law should not affect the insurance. Afterall the insurance is attached to the vehicle not the driver. The lawbreaker, once found guilty should be ordered to pay back all costs to the insurance company for ALL damage that he/she caused.

We have to get the full costs back onto those who committed the offence.

Under the current system the people doing the right thing who have full insurance are continually covering the costs of those who do the wrong thing.

Under this proposed system if an unlicenced driver hits a law abiding citizen in an accident the law abiding citizen has complete peace of mind that they are protected fully under the law. They must get compensated fully!

Whether or not a jail term applies can then be left to the judges ... at least the victim is fully compensated and the debt based on the accident could be re-paid by the guilty party over time.

I would also exclude the debt from bankruptcy provisions so that the guilty party couldn't just wipe the debt through bankruptcy.

At the moment the victim always pays and that just isn't right!