The bill removes specified mandatory minimum sentencing entries from the Crimes Act 1914 and adjusts how courts may discount a statutory period for a defendant’s cooperation with law enforcement. It is narrowly framed as amendments to items and paragraphs in the Act’s sentencing tables and related sentencing provisions.
This matters for anyone involved in Commonwealth criminal prosecutions: judges regain discretion previously constrained by statutory table entries, defence lawyers gain greater room to present mitigation, prosecutors lose an automatic bargaining chip tied to fixed minimums, and victims and victim groups will face changed expectations about baseline punishments.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill deletes certain table entries in section 16AAA of the Crimes Act 1914 (removing those statutory sentence items) and replaces two paragraphs in section 16AAC to focus cooperation discounts on assistance covered by paragraph 16A(2)(h). It also introduces a cap—a cooperation reduction of up to 25% of the period specified in the relevant table column—and contains a forward‑looking application rule.
Who It Affects
Federal sentencing courts, Commonwealth prosecutors and defence counsel are directly affected; the changes most immediately touch defendants charged with offences that were subject to the repealed table entries and victims of those offences. Agencies that handle sentencing policy and prison administration will see downstream effects as judicial practice changes.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the default across-the-board sentencing rule set by Parliament back toward judicial discretion, altering plea negotiation leverage and sentencing outcomes for serious Commonwealth offences. Its drafting choices (repeals plus a capped cooperation discount) create practical and interpretive questions for courts and practitioners at the first sentencing hearings after commencement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The amendments operate by removing specific statutory entries in the Crimes Act’s sentencing tables and by narrowing and capping a statutory cooperation discount. First, the bill eliminates an internal exception in paragraph 15AAA(1)(a) and then repeals a set of listed table items in section 16AAA (items 1A–1E and item 1F).
In practical terms the legislative text strips those named statutory entries from the Act rather than replacing them with new fixed periods.
Second, the bill rewrites two parts of section 16AAC that govern how a court may account for a person’s cooperation with law enforcement. The new text ties the court’s consideration explicitly to cooperation contemplated by paragraph 16A(2)(h) and places a numerical cap on any reduction: a court may reduce the period in the relevant table by up to 25% where the cooperation is of the type described.
That introduces a concrete ceiling on one category of mitigation while leaving other sentencing factors available to the judge.Third, the bill’s application clause restricts its reach to convictions that occur on or after commencement provided the criminal conduct also occurs wholly on or after that date. That means the changes are forward‑looking and do not apply to convictions for conduct that started before the amendments took effect.
Practitioners will need to check timing carefully when advising clients or negotiating pleas.Taken together, the statutory removals and the new cooperation cap change the toolkit available to sentencing judges and to prosecution and defence teams: mandatory statutory anchors are removed for the repealed items, while a defined, limited route for discounting remains in place for cooperation of a particular kind.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill removes the parenthetical exemption in paragraph 15AAA(1)(a) that previously singled out certain table entries from that provision.
It repeals table items 1A–1E in section 16AAA and separately repeals table item 1F, eliminating those statutory sentencing entries.
The substituted paragraph 16AAC(2)(b) limits the cooperation consideration to assistance covered by paragraph 16A(2)(h), i.e.
cooperation in the investigation of the offence or of a Commonwealth child sex offence.
The substituted paragraph 16AAC(3)(b) caps a cooperation reduction at up to 25% of the period specified in column 2 of the applicable item in the relevant table.
The amendments apply only to convictions on or after commencement where the conduct constituting the offence occurs wholly on or after commencement (no retrospective application).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Remove express carve‑out that referenced listed table items
The amendment deletes the parenthetical phrase “(except items 1A to 1E of that table)”. That textual deletion eliminates an existing exception and clears the way for subsequent repeal of the named table items. Practically, it is a preparatory drafting step: it changes which parts of the Act are governed by the higher‑level paragraph and aligns the statute for the removals that follow.
Repeal of multiple table entries (1A–1E)
This provision repeals five individually numbered entries from the sentencing table in section 16AAA. Repealing table entries removes the statutory, table‑based sentencing anchors those items created; where those items previously prescribed or recorded particular periods, that statutory text is taken out of the Act and courts will no longer be bound by those exact entries.
Repeal of table item 1F
Separately repealing item 1F completes the removal of the identified statutory sentencing items. The bill does not substitute alternative fixed terms in the table; instead it leaves the Act without those specific entries, restoring a gap to be filled by judicial sentencing decisions under the Act’s remaining provisions.
Narrowing the basis for cooperation consideration
The substituted paragraph revises the circumstances in which the court may take cooperation into account, by referencing paragraph 16A(2)(h). That focuses the statutory cooperation consideration on assistance given in the investigation of the offence (including Commonwealth child sex offences), clarifying the qualitative scope of cooperation that attracts the statutory mechanism.
Introduce a numeric cap on cooperation discounts and set transition rule
The new subparagraph allows a court to reduce the applicable period by an amount up to 25% of the period shown in column 2 of the relevant table item; it therefore converts one form of mitigation into a quantifiable ceiling. The application clause then confines the amendments to convictions and conduct wholly occurring on or after commencement, preventing retrospective operation and signalling clear temporal limits for practitioners advising clients.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal sentencing courts — regain statutory discretion that mandatory table entries constrained, enabling judges to craft individualized non‑parole periods and to weigh a broader set of mitigating factors.
- Defendants charged under the repealed table items — removal of statutory anchors increases the prospect of lower or more tailored sentences when mitigation is persuasive.
- Defence lawyers — gain bargaining leverage in mitigation and plea negotiations because prosecutors can no longer point to fixed statutory minima for the repealed items.
- Clients who provide investigative cooperation — retain a statutory route to a reduced period, now with a defined ceiling (up to 25%), making the value of cooperation more predictable.
- Legal and civil liberties organisations — stand to benefit from a statutory structure that prioritises judicial assessment over blunt mandatory minima when advocating for sentencing reform.
Who Bears the Cost
- Commonwealth prosecutors — lose the automatic leverage that statutory minimums provided in plea negotiations and charging strategy, requiring revised approaches to securing guilty pleas.
- Victims and victim advocacy groups — may see lower or more varied sentences for certain offenders, and will need to adjust expectations that Parliament set fixed baseline terms.
- Sentencing administration (courts) — will face potentially longer, more fact‑intensive sentencing hearings as judges exercise discretion and justify departures from prior statutory anchors.
- Policy agencies and corrections planners — must adapt forecasting and resource planning to a period of greater sentence variability; short‑term uncertainty could complicate prison population projections.
- Parliamentary drafters and legal advisers — may bear the burden of clarifying interactions between repealed table entries and remaining statutory sentencing mechanisms if judicial interpretation raises ambiguities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between restoring judicial discretion to achieve individualized, context‑sensitive sentences and preserving Parliament’s use of fixed statutory minima to ensure consistent, predictable punishment and prosecution leverage. The bill resolves one problem (rigid minima) but raises another (greater variability and interpretive friction about where a capped cooperation discount applies).
The bill’s structure combines wholesale repeal of discrete table entries with a new, quantitative cap on cooperation discounts. That pairing raises an interpretive awkwardness: the 25% cap ties reductions to “the period specified in column 2 of the applicable item in the relevant table,” yet the bill simultaneously removes a set of those items.
Practitioners will need to determine in which remaining or different table entries the cap will operate, and how courts should apply the cap where the underlying statutory entry has been repealed or where an offence lacks a table entry entirely.
The forward‑looking application rule avoids retrospective change, but it leaves a gap for offences whose conduct straddles the commencement date — the bill applies only where conduct is wholly on or after commencement. That creates a predictable line‑drawing problem in cases with ongoing offending or multi‑episode conduct and will generate litigation or judicial guidance about what “wholly” means in practice.
Finally, removing statutory minima increases sentencing discretion but risks greater inter‑case variation; the bill does not add new sentencing standards or guidance to channel that discretion, so inconsistent outcomes across different courts and judges are a real possibility.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.