Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:58 pm
Time: 11:58 pm
Results for sentencing (victoria, australia)
4 results foundAuthor: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Gender Differences in Sentencing Outcomes Summary: This report examines the research literature and presents data from Victoria to consider differences in sentencing outcomes for men and women. Data on police recorded offending and prison statistics are also included. The report draws several conclusions that are consistent with other research: 1) Women’s offending tends to be less serious than men’s, with women less likely to be involved in violent offences; 2) Women are less likely to be sentenced to imprisonment and, when they are, they receive shorter terms in prison; 3) Women are more likely to receive a wholly suspended sentence or a community-based order; 4) Women prisoners have less serious criminal histories than do men, with fewer prior convictions and less serious previous and current offending; and 5) Women’s sentences are shorter than men’s as women are more likely to have a group of factors that can reduce sentence length: they are more likely than men to have a history of mental illness, physical or sexual abuse in childhood or adulthood and drug abuse. Details: Melbourne: Victoria Sentencing Advisory Council, 2010. 71p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 119456 Keywords: Female OffendersGenderSentencing (Victoria, Australia) |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Sentencing Trends in the Higher Courts of Victoria 2007–08 to 2011–12; Handling Stolen Goods Summary: This Sentencing Snapshot describes sentencing outcomes1 for the offence of handling stolen goods and details the age and gender2 of people sentenced for this offence in the County Court of Victoria between 2007–08 and 2011–12.3 Except where noted otherwise, the data represent sentences imposed at first instance rather than sentences imposed following appeal. A person is guilty of handling stolen goods if he or she dishonestly receives or deals with goods, and knows or believes them to be stolen. Handling stolen goods is an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment4 and/or a fine of 1800 penalty units.5 Indictable offences are more serious offences triable before a judge and jury in the County or Supreme Court. Handling stolen goods can also be tried summarily by the Magistrates’ Court if the property involved meets certain criteria,6 the Magistrates’ Court considers it appropriate and the defendant consents.7 Handling stolen goods was the principal offence8 in 0.4% of cases sentenced in the higher courts between 2007–08 and 2011–12. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2013. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Sentencing Snapshot No. 136: Accessed March 30, 2013 at: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/snapshot_136_sentencing_trends_for_handling_stolen_goods_in_the_higher_courts_of_victoria_march_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/snapshot_136_sentencing_trends_for_handling_stolen_goods_in_the_higher_courts_of_victoria_march_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128174 Keywords: Fencing Stolen GoodsProperty CrimeSentencing (Victoria, Australia)Stolen Property |
Author: Byles, Dennis Title: Sentencing trends in the higher courts of Victoria 2007–08 to 2011–12. Theft Summary: This Sentencing Snapshot describes sentencing outcomes for the offence of theft and details the age and gender of people sentenced for this offence in the County and Supreme Courts of Victoria between 2007–08 and 2011–12. Except where otherwise noted, the data represent sentences imposed at first instance. A person who dishonestly appropriates any property belonging to another person with the intention of permanently depriving that person of the property is guilty of theft. Theft is an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment5 and/or a fine of 1,200 penalty units. Indictable offences are more serious offences triable before a judge and jury in the County or Supreme Court. Theft can also be tried summarily by the Magistrates’ Court if the property involved meets certain criteria, the Magistrates’ Court considers it appropriate and the defendant consents. Theft was the principal offence in 2.2% of cases sentenced in the higher courts between 2007–08 and 2011–12. Details: Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2013. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Sentencing Snapshot No. 137: Accessed March 30, 2013 at: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/snapshot_137_sentencing_trends_for_theft_in_the_higher_courts_of_victoria_march_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/snapshot_137_sentencing_trends_for_theft_in_the_higher_courts_of_victoria_march_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 128182 Keywords: Property CrimesSentencing (Victoria, Australia)StealingTheft Offenses |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Comparing Sentencing Outcomes for Koori and Non-Koori Adult Offenders in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria Summary: There are many causes of over-representation of Koori people in Victoria’s prisons. The findings of this report show that it is influenced by Koori people being more likely to be sent to prison. This difference may be influenced by Koori people being more likely to have been in both the youth justice system and the child welfare system. Both of these may be partly explained by the effects of colonisation and the economic and social impacts that followed. The 2011 Australian census showed that Koori people made up less than 1% of the Victorian population but more than 7% of the Victorian prison population. The rate of imprisonment for Koori people was 13 times higher than for non-Koori people. Recent Australian research has found that Indigenous people are given different sentences because they are more involved in offending, not because of any specific racial discrimination among magistrates and judges. However, racial discrimination contributes to the high levels of disadvantage that influence Indigenous people’s involvement in crime in the first place. The main aim of the Council’s report is to compare sentencing outcomes for Koori and non-Koori offenders who have been sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria to imprisonment, partially suspended sentences, intensive correction orders and community-based orders. The findings of the report address three research questions. Details: Melbourne: Victoria Sentencing Advisory Council, 2013. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2013 at: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/content/publications/comparing-sentencing-outcomes-koori-and-non-koori-adult-offenders Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/content/publications/comparing-sentencing-outcomes-koori-and-non-koori-adult-offenders Shelf Number: 128355 Keywords: Indigenous PeoplesRacial DisparitiesSentencing (Victoria, Australia) |