Tom McLuckie has been campaigning for tougher sentences and law reform around dangerous driving since his son’s death in 2022. Photo: Albert McKnight.
Better justice housing, improved rehabilitation programs and more emphasis on justice for victims – these are some upgrades Tom McLuckie thinks will stop dangerous drivers on our roads.
He’s outlined his argument in a submission to the ACT’s Law Reform and Sentencing Advisory Council (LRSAC) which is looking into sentencing practices for recidivist and dangerous drivers.
Mr McLuckie’s 20-year-old son Matt was killed in a head-on collision on 19 May, 2022. Shakira Adams has been charged over the incident and is before the courts.
The founder of ACTNOWforSaferRoads, Mr McLuckie has been gathering data in relation to sentencing practices for dangerous drivers in the Territory.
In his submission, he said the judicial system wasn’t appropriately using the sentencing guidelines at its disposal.
“The maximum sentence for culpable driving was increased from seven years to 14 years maximum sentence in 2012, yet actual penalties applied have continued to fall, in both head sentences and actual time served incarcerated,” he submitted.
“The purposes of sentencing do not appear to be consistently applied and the purpose of rehabilitation is consistently given more weight than the other purposes.”
Figures compiled by Tom McLuckie show sentencing trends for culpable driving offences since 2010. Photo: Tom McLuckie.
He referred to a number of Supreme Court judgements which he argued showed many recent sentences for culpable driving offences were “manifestly lenient”.
Mr McLuckie also took issue with the argument that the ACT had some of the toughest sentencing options for dangerous driving crimes in the country.
“The ACT Sentencing Act [definition of] ‘terms of imprisonment’ also includes suspended sentences (full and partial), intensive corrective orders … and drug and alcohol treatment orders,” he submitted.
“[So] the reality is across most MV [motor vehicle] crimes there is only a small percentage of those sentenced who actually face a term of imprisonment.
“Many ‘head’ sentences appear to be high, but when the combination of the sentence is considered, are incredibly lenient.”
He submitted his research found that while 54 per cent of culpable driving sentences in 2022-23 were custodial, only 37 per cent included any time in prison.
Mr McLuckie outlined examples which showed justices had gone against recommendations in pre-sentencing reports, which he felt suggested “judicial bias” in the system.
However, he argued that even if tougher sentences or new offences such as vehicular manslaughter were introduced, the “current sentencing jurisprudence” (i.e. theory of law) in the ACT meant it was “unlikely” this would result in any actual increase in penalties.
“We are a unique sh-tshow, with a failing justice system where every key indicator of our performance compared to the rest of the country shows we are the worst performing state or territory … I repeat, the worst,” Mr McLuckie submitted.
“Ultimately it is the victims left bewildered at the injustice forced upon them by our judiciary.”
Mr McLuckie made a number of suggestions to the council about how to change dangerous driving behaviours in Canberra.
This included better funding of community-based sentencing and support, rehabilitation programs and justice housing.
“Our prison system is a recognised disaster completely incapable of providing the most basic of appropriate rehabilitation programs to sentenced persons. This is reflected in two Healthy Prison reports covering a period of six years,” Mr McLuckie submitted.
“Until there is a genuine commitment from the ACT Government to fund community justice solutions … then continuing to approach sentencing with a community focus is not keeping the community safe.”
He also took aim at the ACT’s human rights-focussed system, arguing it appeared offenders were more equal and protected than victims under our laws.
“Whilst it is an unpopular concept with our more woke and progressive politicians, punishment is still part of our purposes of sentencing,” Mr McLuckie submitted.
“The adoption of our blinkered, non-evidenced progressive policies, the lack of funding or actual justice reinvestment, has resulted in a justice strategy where ideology over fact is the preferred approach.
“This is at the very heart of the continued and worsening functions of our justice system in the ACT.”
Mr McLuckie argued sentences should not only consider an offender’s circumstances and chances at rehabilitation, but also ensure the offender was “adequately punished”, provided specific and general deterrence, protected the community, made the offender accountable and denounced their behaviour, and recognised the harm done to the community and the victim(s).
He said particularly if someone died as a result of an offender’s actions on the road.
“No greater harm can be done than to deny someone their right to life. This should never be given more weight than promoting the rehabilitation of the offender,” his submission concluded.
Loading ...
