We received a complaint about an officer’s expression of their reasons for sentence. The matter under sentence concerned sexual offending against children. The complainant was a parent of one of the victim-survivors. The complaint alleged that the Officer, in their reasons for sentence, made:

incorrect findings of fact; and
damaging remarks suggesting the victim-survivors had contributed to their exposure to the harm caused by the offender.

The complainant suggested that their child had been further traumatised by the sentencing process.

We read the Officer’s reasons.

We acknowledged that the court process and the circumstances surrounding it can be stressful for victim-survivors. However, we dismissed the complaint because:

We were satisfied that the first allegation disclosed no basis to consider that the Officer’s conduct may have infringed the standards of conduct generally expected of judicial officers. Assessing the evidence presented at plea hearings and making findings of fact are core responsibilities of a judicial officer. It is for a judicial officer, alone, to decide the sentence to be imposed and, for that purpose, to find the relevant facts.
Concerning the second allegation, we noted that care should be taken to avoid causing unnecessary hurt in exercising the judicial function. This includes being mindful about observations made in remarks on sentence. While judicial officers may comment on issues of wider community concern, their remarks should be tempered with caution, restraint, and courtesy. We were satisfied that the Officer had made remarks critical of the victim-survivor and we acknowledged the impact the remarks were said to have had, specifically, on the complainant’s child. However, the Officer had appropriately qualified their remarks, consistent with the standards of conduct generally expected of judicial officers. In particular, the Officer:

began and concluded their remarks, noting that the remarks did not make the offending any less serious;
acknowledged that the victim-survivors were children and not responsible for their actions; and
referred to the tragic harm the offending had caused to the victim-survivors and their families.

In the overall context of the reasons, we were satisfied that a reasonable community member would not perceive the Officer’s remarks as ‘damaging’ or otherwise inappropriate.

We prepared the investigation report with due regard to the involvement of a young person and the possibility that they may read it.

Integrating trauma-informed values in communicating complaint outcomes to young people