Editorial: Law reform won't reduce police attacks

Photo / Supplied

The Government is to legislate to make assaults against police officers and prison guards an aggravating factor that must be taken into account in sentencing.

Such is its response to a spate of violent attacks this year, which the Prime Minister described as simply unacceptable.

Several alternatives were placed before ministers. These included new and specific offences and penalties for assaults on the police, with the Sensible Sentencing Trust seeking the addition of a mandatory two years' jail to sentences.

However, requiring judges to give weight to an officer's occupation when sentencing the attacker was always a more rational option. Yet even it is superfluous. Indeed, its adoption smacks of a Government wanting to be being seen to be doing something.

The increased number of assaults on police officers and prison guards is an undoubted cause for concern. Over the past five years, attacks on the police have increased by a third, from 1869 to 2481, while serious assaults increased by 38 per cent, from 298 to 412.

Clearly, respect for the police is diminishing. Yet there is little to suggest the sentences imposed by judges or the sentencing law have much to do with that.

The present legislation gives the judiciary a general discretion to decide whether an assault on a police officer warrants a heavier penalty than a similar incident involving an ordinary citizen. But in certain circumstances they must impose tougher sentences.

The Sentencing Act, for example, dictates a non-parole period of 17 years for the murder of police officers or prison guards acting in the line of duty. The Summary Offences Act, for its part, lays down a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment for resisting a police, prison or traffic officer.

Parliament has, therefore, already chosen to acknowledge that assaults on police officers represent a special case. But, when spelling this out for certain offences, it has been careful not to make the punishment differ much from the norm for that crime.

A desire for equality of treatment for all citizens surely played a part in this. It would be errant to make the punishment for attacks on the police greatly out of kilter, much as we expect officers not to be granted exceptional favours when they are guilty of a crime.

Occasional grumbling aside, there is little to suggest that judges have not acknowledged police officers' special status in their sentencing. As such, they are already employing the general discretion, as well as applying the penalties for specific offences.

The Government's planned change to the Sentencing Act will mean only that judges must take account of an officer's occupation when sentencing offenders. Wisely, given the desirability of of maintaining a measure of judicial discretion, it does not dictate an automatic increase in the sentence.

The Government says, nonetheless, that it hopes "explicit legislation denouncing this type of offending will help ensure the courts impose appropriate penalties". In effect, however, it will be imposing a sentencing guideline that hardly needs to be stated.

Judges are as aware as anyone of the increasing number of assaults on police officers. And it is simplistic to suggest, as the Police Association has, that their dismissal of low-level offences against its members has created a culture of disrespect.

Addressing that culture and the increased number of assaults will not be easy. Issues such as a declining respect for authority, changed standards of behaviour throughout society, the increased misuse of liquor and drugs, and the police's own blemished record must be addressed.

One thing is certain; needless tinkering with the judicial system is unlikely to be part of the remedy.