Estudio de tiempos

We identified during consultations a common perception that fines were frequently not being paid by offenders and were then being transferred to the State Penalties Enforcement Register (SPER), which is responsible for the collection and enforcement of unpaid court-ordered fines issued in Queensland. It was also widely believed that SPER debts were not being paid, with some stakeholders reporting that there were offenders with thousands and tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid SPER debts, some of which were for public nuisance matters (Townsville City Council consultations,12 September 2006; Legal Aid Queensland (Brisbane) consultations, 7 September 2006; ATSILS (Mt Isa) consultations, 14 September 2006).

Generally, non-police stakeholders suggested that unpaid fines and high levels of SPER debt for public nuisance offenders provided further evidence of the disproportionate impact on disadvantaged groups and those least likely to be in a position to be able to pay a fine (ATSILS (Mt Isa) consultations, 13 September 2006; Magistrates’ consultations, 13 September 2006, 14 September 2006, 6 October 2006; ATSILS (Townsville)

consultations, 14 September 2006; Legal Aid Queensland (Townsville) consultations, 14 September 2006; Legal Aid Queensland (Cairns) consultations, 19 September 2006;

Legal Aid Queensland (Toowoomba) consultations, 25 September 2006; RIPS

63 There was a suggestion made to the review that lower fines were given ex parte than for matters where the defendant appeared in court (ATSILS (Cairns) consultations, 19 September 2006).

CHAPTER 12: HOW ARE PUBLIC NUISANCE OFFENCES DEALT WITH BY THE COURTS? 107 consultations, 27 September 2006). In contrast, some police and local government representatives suggested that high unpaid fines provide evidence that imprisonment should more frequently be used to respond to public nuisance offending (Townsville City Council consultations, 12 September 2006; QPS (Mt Isa) consultations,

13 September 2006).

Comparison between the courts and SPER data shows that, during the 12 months

preceding the introduction of the new public nuisance offence, approximately 61 per cent (n = 3836) of fine orders were transferred to SPER. During the 12 months after the

introduction of the new public nuisance offence, 64 per cent (n = 4741) of public nuisance fines went to SPER. This increase was found to be statistically significant.

Analysis of the fine amounts recorded in the SPER database revealed that:

• the maximum amount owing for public nuisance only offenders was $795 and the median amount owing was $144 (average = $124.26)

• the maximum amount owing for all public nuisance offenders (including offenders who had also been charged with other offences such as assaults, drug offences, offences against police, property offences) was $2245 and the median amount owing was $144 (average = $149.19).

These figures contrast with the claim by many stakeholders that individual public nuisance offenders owed thousands and tens of thousands of dollars in outstanding fines.

Figure 25 shows the status of SPER debts, at the time of our data request (4 December 2006), for offenders who had been sentenced for public nuisance only matters committed during the 12-month periods before and after the introduction of the new public nuisance offence.

Figure 25: Status of SPER debts (as at 4 December 2006) as a proportion of all monetary orders for public nuisance matters during the 12 months before and after the introduction of the new public nuisance offence

Percentage of total monetary orders for public nuisance only matters

Status of monetary orders made for public nuisance Paid (not sent

to SPER) Currently outstanding Finalised Recalled from SPER 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Source: Courts data

Figure 25 appears to suggest an increase in outstanding debts for public nuisance only matters. However, the differences between the two periods may simply reflect the fact that, at 4 December 2006, there had been more time for monetary orders from the 1 April 2003 – 31 March 2004 period to be paid. Bearing this in mind, it may be concluded that the proportion of outstanding SPER debt is relatively similar across both of the periods under consideration. Indeed, given the higher average fine amounts recorded after the

introduction of the new public nuisance offence, the lack of a corresponding ‘spike’

in outstanding SPER debt or in the proportion of fines that are transferred to SPER is noteworthy.

SuMMAry oF FIndIngS

This chapter examined the manner in which courts respond to public nuisance using Magistrates Court and Childrens Court data for public nuisance only matters.

We found that:

• The volume of public nuisance matters dealt with by the courts is high, particularly in the Magistrates Court, where it represents a substantial proportion of the courts’ workload.

• The overwhelming majority of public nuisance offences (95%) were heard in the Magistrates Court; only 5% were heard in the Childrens Court.

• The proportion of public nuisance matters contested was small (adults = less than 3 per cent, juveniles = less than 14 per cent).

• The vast majority of offenders were convicted (adults = 98 per cent, juveniles = 86 per cent) either through entering a plea of guilty (adults = 62 per cent, juveniles = 84 per cent) or by the matter being dealt with ex parte (adults = 35 per cent, juveniles = 1 per cent). A small percentage were found guilty after pleading not guilty (adults and juveniles = 1 per cent).

In terms of penalties and sentences imposed by the courts for public nuisance only offences, our results show:

• Of those adult offenders convicted, just over half had a conviction recorded. These offenders were more likely to have a conviction recorded if the matter was dealt with ex parte. Indigenous adult offenders were significantly more likely to be dealt with in ex parte proceedings than non-Indigenous offenders and were also significantly more likely to have a conviction recorded.

• In contrast to the pattern seen with adult offenders, the vast majority of juvenile offenders who were convicted did not have that conviction recorded (97 per cent).

• The vast majority of adult offenders received a fine (92 per cent).

• In contrast to the pattern for adult offenders, the majority of juvenile public nuisance only offenders were discharged without further punishment (57 per cent); only 8 per cent received a fine.

• A custodial sentence was imposed (including imprisonment, partially suspended sentences of imprisonment, or fully suspended sentences of imprisonment) in less than 2 per cent of matters. Indigenous adult offenders were more likely than non-Indigenous adult offenders to receive custodial sentences and less likely to receive other orders (such as a good behaviour order or fine). (We identified no statistically significant differences in the Childrens Court data between Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders.)

• Our examination of the court files shows that, in our sample, all those offenders who received a custodial sentence had substantial previous criminal histories.

Three of the adult public nuisance offenders in our sample of court files received a custodial sentence for language-only offences, and that language was directed at a police officer.

In contrast to claims put to the review that the new offence was more difficult to contest, our results show:

• In the Magistrates Court there was little change after the introduction of the new offence. Those statistically significant changes that were identified tend to indicate that the new offence is easier to defend (that is, there was a statistically significant

CHAPTER 12: HOW ARE PUBLIC NUISANCE OFFENCES DEALT WITH BY THE COURTS? 109 increase in the proportion of matters in which the prosecution withdrew the charges, or failed to offer evidence, and a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of matters in which the defendant was found guilty after pleading not guilty).

• In the Childrens Court results, the small proportion of contested matters remained consistent before and after the introduction of the new offence.

In contrast to claims put to the review, and the results of previously published research, which suggested that the substantial increase in the amount of the maximum fine penalty introduced with the new offence had led to a corresponding increase in the amount of fines imposed for the public nuisance offence, our results show:

• the range of fine amounts increased after the introduction of the new offence and the higher maximum amount

• in the Magistrates Court the most commonly ordered fine amount continued to be

$100 after the introduction of the new offence

• in the Childrens Court the most commonly ordered fine amount decreased from

$100 to $50 after the introduction of the new offence.

Finally, in contrast to some claims put to the review, the introduction of the new offence did not coincide with any increase in the proportion of public nuisance only matters that result in a custodial sentence being imposed.

Given that for public nuisance matters:

• the volume dealt with in the courts is high

• the proportion contested is small

• the majority of offenders are convicted

• the vast majority of offenders convicted receive a fine

• the number dealt with ex parte is high

it begs the question of whether there should be an option for public nuisance to be a ticketable offence. We consider this issue in detail in our discussion and recommendations in Chapter 14.

part 4: