Administration of Sentences - NSW Ombudsman - NSW Government
Administration of Sentences - NSW Ombudsman - NSW Government
Administration of Sentences - NSW Ombudsman - NSW Government
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
y police <strong>of</strong>ficers or correctional <strong>of</strong>ficers to a correctional centre, but were to be taken before a police <strong>of</strong>ficer or<br />
authorised justice to be dealt with according to law.<br />
The primary purpose <strong>of</strong> the legislative change was to ensure that inmates who escape from custody are charged<br />
under the criminal law before being returned to custody, while inmates who commit the lesser <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> breaching a<br />
leave order or permit are returned to the correctional centre to be disciplined. A secondary reason for amending the<br />
legislation was to remove an anomaly between the Crimes (<strong>Administration</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sentences</strong>) Act and the Crimes Act 1900<br />
concerning the recapture <strong>of</strong> inmates unlawfully at large.<br />
Significant findings<br />
The records <strong>of</strong> <strong>NSW</strong> Police and the Department <strong>of</strong> Corrective Services that we examined during the review indicate<br />
that in the majority <strong>of</strong> cases, when an escaped inmate is recaptured, or comes to police attention for unrelated<br />
matters, the person is taken to a police station and charged in relation to the escape. This is consistent with the<br />
legislative requirements in the Crimes (<strong>Administration</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sentences</strong>) Act.<br />
No concerns were raised during the review period about the operation and effect <strong>of</strong> the legislative change concerning<br />
the recapture <strong>of</strong> escaped inmates. However, during the review it came to our attention that the legislative provisions in<br />
the Crimes (<strong>Administration</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sentences</strong>) Act and the Crimes Act, concerning the arrest <strong>of</strong> inmates unlawfully at large,<br />
remain anomalous. We recommend that the Department <strong>of</strong> Corrective Services consult with relevant agencies about<br />
how to best address this issue.<br />
In addition, our research demonstrated that when a person is accused <strong>of</strong> escaping from lawful custody, <strong>NSW</strong> Police<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers are sometimes charging the person with the wrong <strong>of</strong>fence (there are different <strong>of</strong>fence provisions relating to<br />
escaping from, for example, police custody, a juvenile justice centre, periodic detention centre or correctional centre).<br />
If a person pleads guilty to the charge, or the error is not picked up by the time the matter is heard at court, this<br />
could mean that the person could be subjected to a harsher penalty than would have been possible had they been<br />
charged with the correct <strong>of</strong>fence. To overcome this issue, we recommend that <strong>NSW</strong> Police consider whether <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
are receiving sufficient training and guidance about the appropriate <strong>of</strong>fence people should be charged with, if they<br />
escape from lawful custody.<br />
<strong>NSW</strong> <strong>Ombudsman</strong><br />
Review <strong>of</strong> the Crimes (<strong>Administration</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Sentences</strong>) Amendment Act 2002 and Summary Offences Amendment (Places <strong>of</strong> Detention) Act 2002 v
Change language