Case Explained: NSW government’s proposed removal of ‘good character’ evidence could undermine justice, legal experts say – Legal Perspective

Legal figures are pushing back against sweeping changes to New South Wales sentencing laws, warning proposed reforms to abolish “good character” references could undermine long-standing principles of justice.

The Crimes Amendment Bill would remove the ability for courts to reduce sentences based on an offender’s prior good character.

While judges would still be able to consider factors such as rehabilitation, remorse and prior convictions, they would no longer be permitted to reduce a sentence on the basis of general reputation or standing in the community.

The Minns government’s reform, which it argued would reduce trauma, was announced following recommendations from the NSW Sentencing Council’s 2024 review into the subject and a sustained campaign by victim-survivors.

But at a parliamentary inquiry into the proposed change on Tuesday, senior legal figures and advocacy groups warned the proposal may go too far.

Representing the NSW Bar Association, senior counsel Dominic Toomey told the inquiry the reform risks stripping courts of critical context when determining sentences.

Mr Toomey argued sentencing required a holistic assessment of both the offence and the individual, warning the bill “would unreasonably limit the ability of the sentencing court to understand the offender as a whole person”.

He said the justice system must retain the ability to weigh whether an offence is out of character, describing it as “an important consideration” in reaching a fair outcome.

The Bar acknowledged community concerns about so-called “privilege discounts” for well-connected offenders, but rejected abolishing good character references entirely. 

Instead, Mr Toomey said reforms should operate “in a fair and equitable manner”.

Critics of the bill have also raised concerns about unintended consequences for vulnerable groups, including domestic violence victims who may be wrongly identified as offenders.

‘Way too broad’

While survivor advocacy groups have broadly supported removing good character references in serious cases, some have cautioned against applying the reform across all offences.

The Feminist Legal Clinic supports changes to sentencing laws, but only for serious offences like sexual assault and domestic violence.

Principal solicitor Anna Kerr said the current bill was “way too broad in its ambit and should be replaced by a far simpler amendment”, arguing reforms should target offences with low conviction rates and repeat offending.

Domestic Violence NSW acting director Rhiannon Cook echoed those concerns, backing limits on character evidence in sexual violence cases while warning larger changes could exacerbate systemic issues.

Ms Cook pointed to the ongoing problem of misidentification, where victim-survivors, particularly Aboriginal women, are wrongly identified as perpetrators, risking further disadvantage if safeguards are not introduced.

Despite the pushback from legal experts, survivor advocates continue to argue the reform is necessary to address harm in the justice system.

Child sexual abuse survivor Harrison James told the inquiry the current system could re-traumatise victims by shifting focus away from the offence.

Mr James said good character references were “deeply harmful” and “re-traumatise survivors,” stating they often reflect privilege rather than accountability.

The parliamentary committee is expected to report their findings in the coming weeks.