Abolition of partially suspended sentences and the use of community correction orders Partially suspended sentences were abolished alongside wholly suspended sentences. Partially suspended sentences allowed an offender to serve a term of imprisonment in custody (the unsuspended term) followed by a term of imprisonment served in the community (the partially suspended term). The period of imprisonment served in custody was a straight sentence of imprisonment, that is, the court did not fix a period, and the offender was released without supervision at the completion of the unsuspended term (on the condition that the offender did not reoffend). It has been observed that partially suspended sentences were frequently imposed where an offender had spent a substantial amount of time in pre-sentence detention, although this cannot be tested using the available data. Although conditions could not be imposed on the partially suspended term, the offender was still under sentence. If the offender reoffended, he or she faced the prospect of having to serve the partially suspended term in custody. A possible contributing factor to the increased use of combined sentences of imprisonment with a CCO is that they are used similarly, in place of partially suspended sentences where an offender has served a substantial amount of time in detention. The pre-sentence detention is accounted for in the imprisonment sentence, and the nature of the combined sentence means that a court can now place appropriate conditions on the CCO (such as monitoring and supervision), which was not possible under a partially suspended sentence. Summary The reduction in the use of non-parole periods in the higher courts and the Magistrates’ in 2014–15 was driven by a combination of factors. First, legislative changes allowed the CCO to be combined with longer terms of imprisonment, expressly permitting the court to consider imposing a CCO where a wholly suspended sentence would previously have been appropriate. Second, an environment created by changes to the administration of parole and guidance to the courts has placed greater emphasis on CCOs. This context is likely to have prompted some courts to view the certainty and flexibility of a CCO, when
Abolition of partially suspended sentences and the use of community correction orders Partially suspended sentences were abolished alongside wholly suspended sentences. Partially suspended sentences allowed an offender to serve a term of imprisonment in custody (the unsuspended term) followed by a term of imprisonment served in the community (the partially suspended term). The period of imprisonment served in custody was a straight sentence of imprisonment, that is, the court did not fix a period, and the offender was released without supervision at the completion of the unsuspended term (on the condition that the offender did not reoffend). It has been observed that partially suspended sentences were frequently imposed where an offender had spent a substantial amount of time in pre-sentence detention, although this cannot be tested using the available data. Although conditions could not be imposed on the partially suspended term, the offender was still under sentence. If the offender reoffended, he or she faced the prospect of having to serve the partially suspended term in custody. A possible contributing factor to the increased use of combined sentences of imprisonment with a CCO is that they are used similarly, in place of partially suspended sentences where an offender has served a substantial amount of time in detention. The pre-sentence detention is accounted for in the imprisonment sentence, and the nature of the combined sentence means that a court can now place appropriate conditions on the CCO (such as monitoring and supervision), which was not possible under a partially suspended sentence. Summary The reduction in the use of non-parole periods in the higher courts and the Magistrates’ in 2014–15 was driven by a combination of factors. First, legislative changes allowed the CCO to be combined with longer terms of imprisonment, expressly permitting the court to consider imposing a CCO where a wholly suspended sentence would previously have been appropriate. Second, an environment created by changes to the administration of parole and guidance to the courts has placed greater emphasis on CCOs. This context is likely to have prompted some courts to view the certainty and flexibility of a CCO, when
Parole%20and%20Sentencing%20Research%20Report.docx