sentence’, while another was opposed to such an expansion because they considered victims’ reparation to be part of rehabilitation’. ‘almost The Council also that a focus on financial compensation could overshadow other recognition that a victim may receive. The Council’s view In light of the above considerations and the lack of stakeholder support, the Council does not believe that the purposes of sentencing should be expanded to include victims’ financial reparation. The Council is of the view that the arguments against making restitution and compensation orders sentencing orders, discussed at outweigh those in favour of an expansion of the purposes of sentencing. The benefits for victims in receiving recognition of their financial losses through such a purpose of sentencing are likely to be largely symbolic. Sentencing orders for financial reparation are likely to create a false expectation for victims that they are more likely to receive compensation, which, given the large proportion of offenders without financial resources, is not realistic (see at [1.39]–[1.43], [4.7]–[4.22]). Victims’ financial reparation is best achieved through the existing framework of restitution and compensation orders, sitting outside the purposes for which sentences are imposed, as ancillary orders, as well as through an appropriately funded and accessible state-funded compensation system. Expanding the purposes of sentencing could lead to differential sentencing outcomes depending on an offender’s financial capacity. In addition, the current legislative framework allows for financial (and losses sustained by victims to be appropriately considered by sentencing courts as a factor in determining sentence.
sentence’, while another was opposed to such an expansion because they considered victims’ reparation to ‘almost be part of rehabilitation’. The Council also that a focus on financial compensation could overshadow other recognition that a victim may receive. The Council’s view In light of the above considerations and the lack of stakeholder support, the Council does not believe that the purposes of sentencing should be expanded to include victims’ financial reparation. The Council is of the view that the arguments against making restitution and compensation orders sentencing orders, discussed at outweigh those in favour of an expansion of the purposes of sentencing. The benefits for victims in receiving recognition of their financial losses through such a purpose of sentencing are likely to be largely symbolic. Sentencing orders for financial reparation are likely to create a false expectation for victims that they are more likely to receive compensation, which, given the large proportion of offenders without financial resources, is not realistic (see at [1.39]–[1.43], [4.7]–[4.22]). Victims’ financial reparation is best achieved through the existing framework of restitution and compensation orders, sitting outside the purposes for which sentences are imposed, as ancillary orders, as well as through an appropriately funded and accessible state-funded compensation system. Expanding the purposes of sentencing could lead to differential sentencing outcomes depending on an offender’s financial capacity. In addition, the current legislative framework allows for financial (and losses sustained by victims to be appropriately considered by sentencing courts as a factor in determining sentence.
Restitution_and_Compensation_Orders_Report.docx