One Nation has unveiled a Victorian election pitch to toughen sentencing laws, pitching the party as offering “the real deal” on law and order. Before any rewrite can happen, it is worth setting out what the current law actually requires courts to do, and where the gap between political rhetoric and legal practice tends to open up.
What One Nation is proposing #
One Nation’s state branch has campaigned on a platform of longer minimum sentences, fewer suspended options and less judicial discretion in serious violent and sexual offence matters. The party has described Victoria’s courts as too lenient and has promised legislative change if it wins seats in the Legislative Council.
Policy promises of this kind are a legitimate part of democratic debate, and parties are entitled to campaign on law-and-order platforms. But Victoria’s sentencing framework is not a blank page. It is built on legislation, appellate case law and a body of guideline judgments that have developed over decades, and any rewrite would have to work within — or explicitly override — that structure.
How sentencing actually works in Victoria #
The Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) sets out the purposes a court must weigh when sentencing someone who has pleaded guilty or been found guilty by a jury. Those purposes include punishment, deterrence of both the person being sentenced and the broader community, rehabilitation, denunciation of the conduct, and community protection. A sentencing judge does not get to pick just one. The Act requires all of them to be considered together, alongside the specific facts found proven in that case.
This is a point that often gets lost in political debate: a sentence that looks lenient to an outside observer may reflect a genuine legal finding — for example a guilty plea entered early, cooperation with police, documented rehabilitation efforts, or a person’s age and personal circumstances at the time of the alleged offending. None of that excuses or minimises any offending. It is simply what the law directs a court to weigh.
Where the “real deal” framing runs into trouble #
Blanket claims that courts are “soft” on crime tend to compress a wide range of matters — different offences, different evidence, different personal circumstances — into a single narrative. Victoria’s County Court and Supreme Court publish sentencing remarks for serious matters precisely so the public can see the reasoning judges apply in individual cases, rather than relying on a headline figure.
Mandatory minimum sentencing regimes, which One Nation and other parties have periodically floated, have already been introduced in Victoria for a narrow set of offences, including some serious assaults connected to the “baseline sentencing” and standard sentence reforms introduced by successive governments. Those reforms were contested at the time, partly because mandatory minimums can reduce a judge’s ability to account for the specific facts of a case — including facts that might support a shorter sentence, such as an early guilty plea, which itself helps victims avoid a trial.
Any party proposing to go further would need to explain how a new regime interacts with the existing Sentencing Act, the Judicial College of Victoria’s sentencing guidelines, and the Court of Appeal’s role in correcting sentences that are found to be unreasonably high or low on appeal.
What courts can and cannot do right now #
It is worth being precise about current limits. A court cannot impose a sentence below a legislated minimum where one applies. A court cannot ignore a victim impact statement, which Victorian law requires to be considered at sentencing. A court cannot suspend a sentence for many serious violent and sexual offences, because suspended sentences for those categories were abolished in Victoria in 2014.
What a court can do is apply a graduated scale of punishment that reflects the seriousness of what is alleged or proven, the person’s record, and their prospects of rehabilitation. That is not the same as leniency. It is the mechanism by which the law tries to ensure sentences are proportionate rather than purely punitive.
Why this matters for how crime stories get reported #
At Victoria Crime News, we report charges, court appearances and sentencing outcomes as they are recorded on the public court file, attributed to Victoria Police statements, court documents, or what is said in evidence. A person who has been charged with an offence is not guilty of that offence — they are alleged to have committed it, and the matter remains before the courts until a plea is entered or a jury returns a verdict. A person who is sentenced has, in nearly all cases, either pleaded guilty or been found guilty by a jury; the sentence that follows reflects the purposes set out in the Sentencing Act, not a political judgment about whether the outcome “feels” tough enough.
Political parties are free to campaign on changing those laws. What they are not free to do — and what good reporting should not do either — is suggest that an individual court outcome reflects judicial indifference to victims, without engaging with the legislative framework a judge was required to apply. One Nation’s pitch may resonate with voters frustrated by specific cases they have read about. Whether it reflects an accurate picture of how sentencing actually operates in Victoria is a separate question, and one the party’s policy documents do not yet answer with much detail.
What comes next #
Any legislative change to sentencing law would need to pass through Victoria’s Parliament, including the upper house where minor parties often hold the balance of power. That process typically involves consultation with the Sentencing Advisory Council, Victoria’s independent statutory body that reviews sentencing data and advises government on reform options. It is a body whose published research — not campaign slogans — has shaped most of the serious sentencing changes Victoria has made over the past fifteen years, including the abolition of suspended sentences and the introduction of standard sentences for some offences.
We will continue to report on sentencing policy debates as they develop, and on individual court outcomes as they are handed down, attributed to the public record in each case.
Readers seeking information about the criminal justice system, including how sentencing works and how to access victim support services, can contact the Victims of Crime Helpline on 1800 819 817. Anyone with information about a crime can contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000. Support is also available through Lifeline on 13 11 14, 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732, and the Sexual Assault Crisis Line on 1800 806 292.
