In recent years, post-sentencing considerations have been somewhat effective in achieving justice in relation to the NSW Criminal Justice System. Post-Sentencing considerations refer to the provisional release of a prisoner after the end of their minimum term of sentence; that is the non-parole period set at sentencing. The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 No 93, has been vaguely effective in achieving justice however, increasing rates of re-offending in NSW indicated by BOSCAR shows the ineffectiveness of post-sentencing considerations in achieving justice. Parole has been ineffective in achieving justice and it has led to the interference of safety of the community, which is seen in the Bayley case. On the other hand, Extensive Supervision orders have been effective as they protect the community and provide justice and rehabilitation to the offender which is seen in the Terry Williamson case. Finally, Deportation has been somewhat effective in achieving justice as whilst it protects the community, it does not provide justice or rehabilitation to the offender as seen in the Robert Jovicic case.
Parole has been ineffective in achieving justice in reference to post-sentencing considerations and the NSW criminal justice system. Parole refers to the release of an offender from imprisonment after the completion of their non-parole minimum and its main purpose is to provide motivation for criminals to rehabilitate as it is believed that early release motivates the possibility of encouraged prisoner discipline. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics found that after 12 months release, 48.6% of unsupervised criminals re-offend after being granted parole, compared to 43.6% of supervised criminals. This is further seen in the Adrian Bayley Case where Bayley sexually assaulted and murdered Jill Meagher in late 2012. This case emphasises the ineffectiveness of parole, as Bayley was on both parole and bail for previous assaults when he sexual assaulted and murdered Meagher. Bayley’s release on parole affected the safety of the community, and due to this, was ultimately the reason for Meagher’s death. In addition to this, experts such as coroner Ian Gray stated that “Gillian Meagher’s death was preventable” and continued to say that "A more rigorous, risk-averse approach by CCS and the APB would have led to a cancellation of Bayley's parole,". Additionally, Judge Ian Callinan stated that it was ''not easy to understand'' why Adrian Bayley was not put in jail after admitting guilty to ‘king-hitting’ a stranger in Geelong whilst drunk. This has led to a debate about the Adult Parole Board of Victoria’s failure to meet its responsibility to keep the community safe from the risk of repeat offenders after being released into society. Therefore, parole has been ineffective in achieving justice and keeping members of community safe. The increase of re-offending, and cases such as Adrian Bayley are examples where people’s safety is put on the line due to the release of an offender, therefore proving its ineffectiveness.
With regards to post sentencing considerations and the NSW Criminal Justice System, Extended Supervision orders have been effective in achieving justice and keeping members of society safe. Extended supervision orders allow for the rigorous supervision of high risk sex and violent offenders by Community Corrections Officers. The different conditions which can be given to an offender whilst on ESO’s include electronic monitoring, restrictions on who offenders associate with, where offenders go, regular reporting to Community Corrections Officers and participation in rehabilitation programs. According to Corrective Services NSW, 74 offenders are applied to Extended Supervision Orders on a monthly average. This shows that ESO’s are effective in increasing the amount of offenders under supervision, therefore increasing the safety of society. Furthermore, the effectiveness of ESO’s is further supported by the Terry Williamson Case who, at the age of 20, violently sexually assaulted 10 females aged between 5 and 44, and a 11 year old boy by abducting them from the street or in their own homes. Out of fear of him re-offending Williamsons first victim pleaded for Illawarra residents to support her in campaigning to keep Williamson under the watch of corrective services for the rest of his life. In response to this, the NSW Department of Justice applied to have Williamson subject to an extended supervision order for a further 5 years following his 22 year sentence. This order requires Williamson to continue taking medicine prescribed by his medical practitioner, he is required to wear electronic monitoring equipment for the duration of the order, restrictions placed on his use of internet no access to social media and he is required to notify authorities if he wants to start a new job or if he forms a sexual relationship. Additionally, Justice Peter Johnson stated that "There is no sign of that at present, nor has there been for two years, but that, in my view, is [due to] the intensive treatment and supervision regime which is applied to him, and which should continue to apply.". This case demonstrates how the law has responded to the pressures of the community and how this has allowed the community, the offender and victims to each achieve justice. Therefore, Extended Supervision Orders have been effective in achieving justice in relation to the NSW Criminal Justice System as it provides offenders with rehabilitation, reduces the chances of re-offending and improves safety for the community.
Finally, deportation has been somewhat effective in achieving justice in relation to the NSW Criminal Justice System. Under the Migration Act 1958, migrants living in Australia who aren’t citizens may be deported if they are tried and convicted of a criminal offence. Deportation protects the safety of the community, however this is done in an inefficient way. Barrister Nicholas Poynder stated that “All the minister has to do is make the decision correctly and the person gets deported” he continues to say that “If the decision is legally erroneous then the court is entitled to set that aside and return it to the decision-maker to do properly”. This emphasises the inefficient process which is taken to deport someone in Australia and how the offender does not receive justice in such procedure. This is further supported by the Robert Jovicic case where Jovicic, who moved to Australia at the age of 2, had his residency cancelled due to the criminal offences he was charged with whilst under the influence of heroin. Jovicic was able to receive an permanent citizenship, however, like many others, he never officially applied, which led to his cancellation which was based on the ministers optional power to deport non-Australian citizens convicted of an offence. Consequently, Jovicic was deported to Belgrade, Serbia, although having no resources to provide for himself there, therefore leaving him to become homeless and ‘stateless’ as he had no working visa in Serbia either. The media highly publicised the state in which Jovicic was living in, which resulted in his return to Australia, waiting for almost an entire year before being given a two-year special protection visa. Following this he received a permanent citizenship in 2008 given by Senator Chris Evans, the labour minister for immigration and citizenship. This emphasises that deportation can be effective as it somewhat protects the community, however it also portrays its ineffectiveness due to its failure to provide justice to the offender. Therefore, Deportation can be effective as it protects the community from offenders, however it is also proven ineffective as it only provides justice to the community and not the offender.
Thus, the implications of post-sentencing considerations can be effective in achieving justice as it undertakes the best interests of members in the community, however, it can also be ineffective as in some cases it does not protect the community, does not provide justice for the offender, and does not provide the offender with the option of rehabilitation.