What sort of A-G would George Brandis make?

Greg Barns | The Drum | 29 August 2011

George Brandis would no doubt like to be attorney-general, the first law officer of Australia, in the next Coalition government.

Senator Brandis is a barrister and a senior counsel, although the latter appointment was the subject of harsh criticism given it was awarded to him six years after he gave up active practice at the Queensland Bar.

But Senator Brandis's conduct in the Craig Thomson affair provides cause for concern about what sort of attorney-general he would be if the opportunity arose. Senator Brandis has pursed the ALP backbencher Thomson with a vigour that is disturbing on a number of levels.

Firstly, there are the telephone calls to ministers and police commissioners. Senator Brandis called New South Wales Attorney-General Greg Smith, a fellow Liberal, in early August. Smith says that Brandis was alerting him to a forthcoming media story which would reveal Brandis had asked the New South Wales DPP to look at the Thomson matter.

Then a couple of weeks later Brandis was on the phone again, this time to speak with New South Wales Police Minister Michael Gallacher to again alert him to the fact that Brandis would be sending a brief to the Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione. Gallacher himself alerted Scipione to look out for the Brandis brief.

Then there was Brandis's call to Australian Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus last week. Brandis apparently wanted to clarify whether the AFP would be investigating the matter.

Even if we accept that Brandis did no more than inform his New South Wales colleagues of what he was up to, it was unwise of him to call them given the political stakes in the Thomson affair. Brandis did not need to call Smith and Gallacher, and in doing so he showed that he lacks judgment because he has allowed his political opponents to accuse him of lobbying to have the Thomson matter investigated.

Murder of Police Officers Bill: an eye for an eye?

Last week, Michael Gallacher finally got the opportunity to fulfill one of his longest-held promises: the introduction of the Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill. In his second reading speech, the Police Minister, himself a former police officer and 31 year member of the NSW Police Association, spoke of being "delighted" and "extremely proud" to provide for mandatory life sentences to be imposed on persons convicted of murdering police officers.

He commenced by correctly observing that:

Murder currently carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 

Where the victims are police officers, however, the status quo has long got up Gallacher's nose, because in 2011 it remains the case that:

under section 21 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act courts retain the discretion to impose a shorter sentence. 

Unashamedly, he announced that the purpose of the the bill was to close this outrageous loop-hole, and:

remove the current discretion of the court in circumstances where a police officer is murdered.

The need for such an amendment was clear:

... the fact that we have had 12 officers killed while undertaking their duty since 1971 just shows us that something finally needs to be done to deter those who would even consider committing such an offence.

Gallacher apparently believes that these 12 police officers were killed by the type who contemplate a 20 to 40 year sentence, figure that if they're caught they'll sit the sentence out easy, and then go ahead with it. These sorts of considerations need to be stopped, according to Gallacher, who like all good politicians, has the solution:

Making sure that those who murder an officer are imprisoned for the term of their natural life is the most effective deterrent.

Because those who would scoff at a sentence taking away the majority, if not the best years, of their adult life would surely not proceed if they had to serve more jail time in their old age.

Gallacher's conclusion was backed up by the citation of several expert studies, which demonstrate the increased effectiveness of natural life sentences as a deterrent. He also cited examples of other jurisdictions where the introduction of mandatory life penalties had reduced the commission of certain offences.

Actually I was dreaming: he did neither of those things. In fact, all he did before the introduction of this bill was consult his gut feeling, and that of his mates in the Police Association. That's right: he looked it up in his gut.

And where has Attorney-General Greg Smith SC been during this process? We might have expected him as the Government's chief spokesman for what is, after all, a major amendment of the criminal law. Perhaps the kind of rhetoric he espoused ahead of the election, including labeling proponents of mandatory sentencing "rednecks", disqualified him from the role. What is now clear is that he no longer opposes the mandatory sentencing rednecks, and has instead joined their rank. Or at least has made an exception in the case of Police. He told the Legislative Assembly that he prosecuted the killers of Constable David Carty, and:

gave my blood, sweat and tears to that case in honour of that policeman.

Smith rebuked Labor's spokesman on Legal Affairs, Paul Lynch, who he said was:

reported as having said that the Government's proposed policy to impose life imprisonment for those who deliberately kill police officers is:

... flawed and failed policy ... We think that [it] is likely to lead to fewer convictions. It would also give no incentive to plead guilty and put families of victims through even more heartache.

Did he ask David Carty's father, John, what he thought? Did he ask his mother, Lorraine, what she thought? 

Ask them what? Whether, in their expert opinion, it was good policy? Whether it would lead to less pleas of guilty and less convictions? Whether it would prevent cops getting killed? Or should we just ask them whether a sentence of life would give them the satisfaction they sought for the loss of their son?

You can fairly guess what most family members would say. In 2006, after the Parole Board released Thaier Sako (who had been convicted only of grievous bodily harm upon David Carty), Lorraine Carty said "how do we appeal our sentence of grief?"

You would understand if Lorraine gave nil consideration to the mitigating factors of those who bashed and killed her son. That's not what one tends to do after a loved one has been deliberately killed. I imagine it could be difficult for a surviving family to want other than to take the life of the murderer. It is for that precise reason, many centuries ago, we took the job out of their hands and left the task of sentencing to Courts.

This bill is rightly called a retrograde move by Nick Cowdery QC, for if we accept, as the Coalition appear to, that the penalty for a crime can rightly be fixed at the maximum short of death, with reference only to the wishes of the victim, their families, or a professional association, we may as well not have Courts at all.

When we remove the veneer, this bill amounts to the Liberal/National Party, in the name of Police and families, taking the law into their own hands. It amounts to a Government hijacking the sentencing process to satisfy a desire for retribution, without any reference to the Courts.

In this instance, Courts will be contracted - no obliged - to carry out the hit, at the directive of government, on behalf of those who seek revenge. As highlighted by Richard Ackland's article last week, the upcoming case of Mahmud will seek to test the constitutional validity of this process. Mahmud's submissions to the High Court, as well as those in response, can be found here.

Gallacher's assertion that the mandatory life penalty provides a more effective deterrent than say a 34 year sentence (Penisini: killer of Constable Glen McEnally) or a 28 year sentence (Gilbert Adam: killer of Carty) is is an attempt to provide a reasonable justification for the bill, but it is no more than an attempt.

His talk of extra protection for Police might pep up the troops, but surely even they know this bill won't matter to a person crazy or determined enough to kill a cop in the first place. What Police do understand is the very basic language their man in Macquarie St speaks to them, namely 'an eye for an eye' for slain cops.  They might well be happy with that. The problem is the next group that want to feel the same way.

Critics say proposed laws won't stop cop killings

Sarah Dingle | ABC Online | 23 May, 2011

A New South Wales Government plan to make life sentences compulsory for people who murder police officers has worried the state's former director of public prosecutions and civil liberties advocates.

The Government will this week introduce legislation that says anyone convicted of murdering a police officer would automatically be sentenced to life in jail. At the moment there are mandatory 25-year sentences for people convicted of murdering police officers or other public officials.

Australian police unions have welcomed the move, saying officers in other states should get the same protection.

But the former NSW director of public prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC, says there is no evidence this will deter criminals and that it takes away courts' independence.

"This kind of offence [is] going to be committed in the heat of the moment in an atmosphere of great drama and tension," he said.

"People aren't going to stop and think, 'oh dear, if I do this and if I'm caught and if these circumstances are satisfied I will end up with a life sentence, I'd better not to do it'."

Brett Collins, spokesman for civil rights group Justice Action, agrees the move will not work.

"You wouldn't save a single policeman," he said.

"To suggest that people wouldn't be killing policemen because they would think carefully beforehand and think 'oh I've got a mandatory life sentence' is not what happens."

Mr Collins says judges should be free to sentence as they see fit. He says the murder of officers does not happen often, but when it does it tends to be harshly dealt with by the judiciary.

"This is putting wrong values on the values of life. The values of life, of course every person's life, is a sacred thing," he said.

"And to suggest a policeman's life is of more value than another public servant's or someone else who is very vulnerable is wrong."

The Australian Lawyers Alliance says mandatory life sentencing has not acted as a deterrent to police killings overseas. Its director Greg Barns says he will be writing to NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith over the lack of discretion for the courts.

"Mr O'Farrell has said that this will act a deterrence. It has proved to be no deterrence in the United States where mandatory life sentences for police killers has been in place since the 1970s," he said.

"In five of the past 10 years in the United States, the FBI says we've had high rates of killing."

Cop killers will get mandatory life term: O'Farrell

SMH | May 22, 2011 

The NSW government will this week introduce new legislation that will ensure anyone who murders a serving state police officer receives a full life sentence, Premier Barry O'Farrell says.

"It's unacceptable to me... to the community and others, that police who are murdered don't have those responsible sent to jail," Mr O'Farrell told reporters in Sydney today.

"This is about ensuring that there's the strongest possible message.

"Those who murder police will be locked up for life."

A life sentence would mean for the rest of the convicted killer's natural life, NSW Emergency Services Minister Michael Gallacher said.

"This fulfils a long commitment we've given to the men and women in the NSW Police Force," Mr Gallacher added.

John Carty, whose police officer son David was murdered in Sydney in 1997, supported the plan.

"David was attacked by 25... I call them men but they're vermin from hell as far as I'm concerned," Mr Carty said.

"I'm very happy to be here today and say it's good legislation."

It remains unclear which parties will support the legislation, due to be tabled in the state parliament in coming days.

Mr Gallacher said he believes the NSW Greens would not be supportive of the bill.

Move on Directions Bill: Second reading speech

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 10 May 2011, Proof)

LAW ENFORCEMENT (POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES) AMENDMENT (MOVE ON DIRECTIONS) BILL 2011

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.10 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour have been a source of concern to the community in New South Wales and Australia-wide. The Government is seeking new ways to address this complex issue. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] identified a significant increase in alcohol-related incidents of offensive behaviour between 2005 and 2009. In 2008 the BOCSAR also reported a statistical increase over a five-year period in alcohol-related assaults and incidents using a glass or bottle as a weapon. Alcohol-related injuries pose a significant cost to the health system. A study conducted at St Vincent's Hospital emergency department in 2004-05 calculated that up to $1.38 million per year was spent on alcohol-related injuries and intoxication alone.

People are entitled to enjoy a night out without fear of having their evening ruined by drunken and violent hooligans. That is why the Coalition Government is proposing the implementation of the first stage of the Making Our Streets Safe Again policy by strengthening existing move-on powers. Current move-on powers in section 198 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act restrict police to giving directions to persons in groups of three or more intoxicated people. The proposed amendment enables police to give directions to intoxicated individuals regardless of whether they are by themselves or part of a group. Move-on powers give police an effective enforcement tool to address drunk and disorderly behaviour before it becomes a public safety issue. Giving police the power to encourage intoxicated individuals to go home will help to reduce the incidence of violence around entertainment and licensed venues.

The current thresholds in relation to the likelihood of the intoxicated person causing injury, causing damage or giving rise to a risk to public safety will continue to apply. The direction given by the police officer must be reasonable in the circumstances in order to prevent injury or damage or to reduce the risk to public safety. The period during which a person may be directed not to return to the public place is not to exceed six hours. While our election commitments focus on alcohol-related violence, we recognise that antisocial behaviour can be the result of the consumption of alcohol or drugs, or both. The current definition of "intoxicated" in section 198 covers the effects of both alcohol and drugs. A person is intoxicated for the purposes of issuing a move-on direction when:

(a) the person' speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is noticeably affected, and

(b) it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the affected speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is the result of the consumption of alcohol or any drug.

The only substantive amendment in the bill amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to omit from section 198 (1) "in a group of 3 or more intoxicated persons". This amendment means there is no longer a requirement for the intoxicated person to be in company with other intoxicated persons for the direction to apply. The amendment authorises police to move on intoxicated individuals regardless of whether they are by themselves, with another person or in a group of people. This bill is the first important step towards making the streets of New South Wales safe again. Police will be able to direct intoxicated persons to move on before trouble starts. Strengthening the existing move-on powers will lay the groundwork of the next stage of our election commitments relating to intoxicated and disorderly behaviour. The Government is committed to ensuring that intoxicated and disorderly behaviour on our streets will not be tolerated. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

O’Farrell Government To Strengthen Police Move-On Powers

Press Release | NSW Government | 9 May 2011

NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell and Minister for Police and Emergency Services Michael Gallacher today announced strengthened police move-on powers to crackdown on anti-social behaviour.

“Under these new laws to be introduced by my Government today, fulfilling yet another election commitment, Police will be able to move-on intoxicated individuals who are acting in a way that may cause harm to themselves, to others or to property,” Mr O’Farrell said.

“Under the current law, move-on powers can only be used for groups of three or more under the current law,” he said.

“We have to change the culture of alcohol related anti-social behaviour in NSW, and that change starts with making people personally responsible for their own actions.

“The Police are sick of being punching bags on a Friday and Saturday night in our major entertainment districts,” he said.

Mr Gallacher said the community is all too familiar with the problems and the destructive nature which can be caused by a single drunk.

“The offending individual may be shouting and swearing under the windows of people trying to sleep. He or she can be seen any Friday and Saturday night walking recklessly out into traffic or stumbling around railway stations,” Mr Gallacher said.

“We are changing this so Police can give a direction to move on intoxicated individuals as well as groups. The laws can only be exercised in public places.

“This is aimed at those individuals whose excessive drinking makes late night entertainment areas unpleasant and, often, positively dangerous.”

Mr Gallacher said the new laws will be a valuable preventative measure as, by complying with the police move-on direction a person will be able to avoid a charge of being 'intoxicated and disorderly' – a new summary offence which the NSW Government will also shortly introduce.

“With this simple but important reform, the capacity of police to keep our streets and other public places safer will be considerably strengthened,” Mr Gallacher said.

The Coalition and Mandatory Sentencing

Who will prevail in the battle between liberals and “rednecks”?

In each election in New South Wales since 1999, the Coalition has promised a policy of mandatory sentencing in relation to one or more offences. In 1999, the Opposition spokesman on Legal Affairs, John Hannaford, proposed a form of grid sentencing.

In 2003, the Coalition went to the election promising mandatory minimum sentences for a range of offences including murder in the first and second degree, murder of a police officer, gang rape and some commercial drug offences.

It was reported that the original policy, drawn up by Shadow Legal Affairs spokesman Chris Hartcher, had also included mandatory sentences for property offences, and that a split in Shadow Cabinet had developed over the proposals.

A leaked document made its’ way into government hands, and it was revealed that Opposition front bencher, Brad Hazzard, had led the argument against mandatory minimums, and for the proposition that judicial discretion in sentencing should be maintained.

In the end, Opposition Leader John Brogden went to the 2003 election with a modified proposal that did not include property offences, but nonetheless would have required courts to impose, for example, 25 year minimum sentences for first degree murder, and life imprisonment for the murder of a police officer. These laws would have permitted no judicial discretion to impose a sentence that was appropriate to the facts of the offence or the offender.

In 2005, Brogden had again proposed to take mandatory sentencing to the next election, only to lose the Opposition leadership in disgrace. The new leader, Peter Debnam, picked up the baton and maintained the policy of mandatory life for the murder of a police officer, with Hartcher again putting forward proposals to end 'soft' jail terms and introduce a new system of sentencing for violent criminals.

Arriving as a new MP in 2007, former Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Greg Smith became the new Shadow Attorney General. In that role, Smith has repeatedly stated his determination to take Coalition policy in a very different direction to his predecessors. In 2009, he told the Australian’s Chris Merritt:

"I have (Liberal Party) support for the view that the law-and-order auction should not be continued in the next election." 

He said his colleagues in the state opposition "did not take a lot of convincing" to abandon the law-and-order auction and embrace the need for more effective rehabilitation of prisoners:

"The Liberal Party are supportive of this line, as are people who I have spoken to in the community.”  

 Smith went on to say: "I know there are still rednecks out there that want mandatory sentencing and matters of that sort," before emphasizing his priority to reduce the growing budget devoted to imprisonment.

Despite these comments, and what would appear to be a denunciation of mandatory sentencing by Smith, the Coalition have not abandoned their policy to introduce mandatory life for the murder of a police officer.

We already know what such an amendment might look like, care of a 2007 private members bill, introduced by NSW’s next Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, but defeated in the Legislative Council.

The proposed amendment was as follows:

19B Compulsory life sentences for murder of police officers 

1) A court is to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on a person who is convicted of murder of a police officer if the murder was committed:

(a) While in the execution of the police officer's duty, or 

(b) As a consequence of, or in retaliation for, actions undertaken by that or any other police officer in the execution of the officer's duty. 

2) A person sentenced to imprisonment for life under this section is to serve the sentence for the term of the person's natural life. 

3) This section applies to a person who is convicted of murder of a police officer only if the person was of or above the age of 18 years at the time the murder was committed. 

4) If this section requires a person to be sentenced to imprisonment for life, nothing in section 21 (of any other provision) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 or in any other Act or law authorises a court to impose a lesser or alternative sentence. 

5) Nothing in this section affects the prerogative of mercy. 

In the Second Reading Speech, Gallacher referred to his own background in the Police Force, and the deaths of David Carty and Glenn McEnallay, both officers murdered in the execution of their duty. The bill was strongly supported by the NSW Police Association, as well as the parents of Carty and McEnally.

Interestingly, the second reading speech referred to the case of Taufahema, a co-accused in the murder of McEnallay, who drove the vehicle being pursued by Police, and in which the shooter was a passenger.

Taufahema’s murder conviction was quashed on appeal to the CCA, on the basis of certain principles of accessorial liability, and he was acquitted of the charge. Notwithstanding that the shooter, Penisini, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 34 years, with a 23 year non parole period, McEnallay’s family and the Police Association were outraged by Taufahema’s acquittal.

Although this result had nothing to do with the adequacy or otherwise of sentencing, and concerned principles that most people (including criminal lawyers) do not understand, Gallacher was not deterred:

"The community and the Opposition—and certainly Glenn McEnallay's parents—believe the driver of the car involved was implicated in the murder and should have stayed in jail for the murder of Glenn. The cases of those involved in the murders of David Carty and Glenn McEnallay highlight the soft stance taken in New South Wales against people who murder police officers. This bill is another step in providing a higher level of protection for police."

It would appear this policy has remained something of an article of faith for some members of the Coalition, and like other matters of faith, resistant to reasoned argument. And as the following part of the second reading speech reveals, Gallacher’s understanding of the effect of the amendment and the removal of judicial discretion was, at least in 2007, questionable:

“One member referred to it as a simple bill. It is a shame that the simpleton did not read this so-called simple bill. The Hon. Lynda Voltz spoke about her big issue with this legislation. In fact, it was her only issue in the contribution she made some time ago. She said: 

The question that comes to my mind is: If this sentence is mandatory, is there no situation that we can see where a judge should hear the case and give some weight to the decision? 

Should we not ask the judge to look at the situation? 

Had she bothered to read the bill she would have seen that in relation to the compulsory life sentence for the murder of police officers—new section 19B—it says: 

Nothing in this section affects the prerogative of mercy. 

In other words, the very issue that she hung out as the only one that was causing her not to vote for this bill is that we are denying judges the ability to use their prerogative with regard to mercy."

It is not known whether there will be a further debate within the party over this policy, or the position that Greg Smith will take. His previous statements appear not to favour mandatory sentencing, yet he has not spoken publicly against this proposal. Requests made to his office this week to clarify his position have not been answered.

Those in the criminal law world might remember that Mr Smith prosecuted the brothers Gilbert and Richard Adam for the murder of Constable David Carty in 1998, and then went on to appear in the appeals in the CCA and High Court. One wonders what that experience had on the formation of his attitude to this policy.

What we do know is that this bill will resurface at some stage. Whether the so-called “rednecks” prevail over the small-l liberals of the Coalition remains to be seen.

In 2000 the then PM John Howard said:

“As a matter of principle, I do not agree with mandatory sentencing. I agree with strong sentencing laws, but in the end I do think these matters ought to be determined by judges and magistrates.” 

Can we expect the Liberal Party to follow the lead of their patriarch, and stand up for the principle of judical discretion in sentencing? And will this issue give us any line on O'Farrell, and his reputation as a moderate?

Depending on where the Upper House votes fall tomorrow, the answers to these questions may not be too far away. 

NSW Election 2011

In ten weeks time, New South Wales will elect a new government.  If the bookies and pundits are to be believed (not to mention those inside the Labor Party) there is no prospect this election will be close and it now seems the only real contest will be fought over the size of the Coalition majority, tipped to be somewhere between healthy and massive.

It is shaping as the most unusual election seen in New South Wales for a very long time. Word has well and truly got out that the electorate are armed with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm on Labor. Even if Barry O'Farrell died or was charged with a criminal offence, he could be replaced and the Coalition still win in a canter.  Indeed, the drover's dog could lead them to victory.

Seeing then the Coalition bears no real onus to shift votes, will they have any need to take part in the type of "law-and-order" campaign with which NSW has become so familiar? Perhaps not, although Labor, fearful of a wipeout, and unable to change their spots, may still draw them into one.

With this in mind, RG intends to examine the major parties in the next ten weeks, and determine their policies on issues surrounding the criminal justice system.

Throughout their sixteen year reign, Labor has a shown a great fondness to use imprisonment as the primary lever of policy. During this time the NSW prison population has risen sharply. Can we expect any changes in 2011 and beyond? In an interview on Stateline between Quentin Dempster and Police Minister Michael Daley last May, we are given a strong indication that Labor believes imprisonment works.

Here's a part of the transcript, which also includes an interview with Shadow Police Minister, Michael Gallacher, himself an ex-police officer, who observes that teenagers do "apprenticeships in crime" in the juvenile system, and speaks of a need to prevent them from going on to complete a "masters in crime".

Stateline - 18 May 2010

As we all sleep more soundly in our beds knowing police will soon have the capability to catch more criminals, Dr John Buchanan, an expert on incarceration rates, unemployment, social and workforce trends, has a warning for police and for the rest of us: Australia now has a growing prisoner population and we're trending towards the United States in locking up marginalised and criminalised citizens.

JOHN BUCHANAN, SYDNEY UNI: Two per cent of the adult male population in the US is in jail. It actually keeps their unemployment rates down. That's actually ...

(Laughter from audience).

That's actually the equivalent of what we call the long-term unemployed. In the US they call them inmates. I was thinking for you guys, for policing, that's something to reflect on, because if you look at Australia, it was like Norway and it's becoming like America. So we've got a long way to go, but they are dramatic shifts, and if you look across all countries, Australia's been one of the fastest shifters to rely on the rising incarceration rates for maintaining social order.

QUENTIN DEMPSTER: Stateline asked the Government and Opposition Police spokesmen if it they were happy with the NSW and Australian incarceration trends.

MICHAEL DALEY: As Police Minister, and I can speak for the Police Commissioner and for all of his record 15,000-odd troops, we have a very simple job to do and that is simply to keep people safe and feeling safe. And this graph issued by the Bureau of Crime Statistics bears out what you say. As we see the blue line there trending up, the rates of incarceration trending up, the pink line, which is the crime statistics trend, correspondingly down. For every point that pink line falls, it means one of your viewers has not fallen victim to someone who wants to hurt them or their family. That's our charter: stopping people becoming victims before the criminals get hold of them.

QUENTIN DEMPSTER: You make no apology for the incarceration rates and the likelihood that it will go up?

MICHAEL DALEY: Does government have a responsibility to make sure that people from lower socio-economic groups and those that you talk about as marginalised get the welfare that they deserve and the safety nets are in place? Yes, we do. Do we have a responsibility to make sure that they have an access to education and employment so they don't embark upon a life of crime? Yes, we do.

MICHAEL GALLACHER: Every person you've got in jail are there because there are victims out on the street. And we believe that the direction that we are travelling isn't necessarily in the best interests of the community. We do need to look at measures that we can intervene much earlier on. We've got young offenders now, 11, 12 years of age - four years from now when they've completed their apprenticeship in crime in the juvenile justice system, they've still got two years to run, and I think we've gotta do a darn site more to try to get those people out of the pathway that they're currently travelling and get them into one where we can actually prevent them completing an apprenticeship beyond that and indeed a masters degree in crime.