COURTS ACT TO PROTECT CHILDREN

THE Court of Criminal Appeal has raised some intriguing questions with its
decision to set aside a jail term for a woman convicted of helping to
import heroin because her children would not cope with being separated from
her.

The woman walked free after serving just seven months of an eight-year
sentence. The sentence was replaced with a five-year good behaviour bond.

The woman had appealed against the sentence, claiming that her four
children were suffering because of her absence, that she had played a minor
role in the importation of heroin worth $200,000 and that she had been
unlikely to profit from the crime.

While the courts are required by the Crimes Act to take into account in
sentencing the probable effect on an offender's children it is easy to see
the difficulties this creates.

Jailing a parent - mother or father - has an inevitable impact on children.
That is self-evident.

Dependent children are not guilty of any crime and do not deserve to be
punished for the actions of their parents. While it can be argued that an
errant parent should take into account the effect of their behaviour on
their children, it is obvious that many fail to do so. The financial and
emotional cost of caring for such children, both now and in later years as
a possible result of a difficult childhood, is another aspect to be considered.

But equally, there must be a consequence for a person convicted of a crime,
particularly a crime involving the importation of drugs. And in this case,
that consequence is hard to find.

It is ironic that the woman should be freed from jail because she has
children to care for, when the heroin she helped bring into the country had
the potential to threaten the lives of someone else's children.

The court seems to be stepping into treacherous waters by apportioning
punishment on the basis of whether a person has children to care for. The
risk to the children in this case if their mother served her sentence might
well be high, but many children whose parents flout the law are in the same
position.

It is unfortunately true that the appeal court's decision to allow this
mother to walk free has effectively rewarded her for being an irresponsible
parent over being simply an irresponsible citizen. Had she not had children
to care for she would have served her time in jail, as will those who
commit similar crimes and do not have children.

The dissenting judge in the appeal court thought that the public interest
in deterring the handling of heroin of the amount in this case should take
precedence over the harmful effects on the children.

It is true that her involvement in the crime was small. But the amount of
heroin involved was not.

Both other judges, however, thought it in the best interests of the family
that the mother be released. There were, one believed, exceptional elements
to the case.

Rather than sending a message about the extra responsibilities which must
be assumed with becoming a parent, regrettably this decision seems to do
the reverse.

However, society is also responsible for trying to ensure the well-being of
all children, whatever the shortcomings of their parents. Fortunate though
she might be, it is on this basis that the woman is free.