Call for discretion with mentally ill

Mentally ill people who commit serious assaults against police could be exempt from mandatory jail terms under a proposal being investigated amid concerns the laws are unlikely to deter offenders affected by mental impairment.

A statutory review of mandatory sentencing laws which came into effect in 2009 has recommended the Department of the Attorney-General look at restoring judicial discretion when dealing with offenders with a mental illness, cognitive impairment or disability.

The review, tabled in State Parliament yesterday, also highlighted concerns that the process used to determine if an accused person faced a charge with the trigger for the compulsory jail term lacked transparency.

"Unlike judges' sentencing decisions, prosecuting decisions are not made public and it seems the process adopted has engendered confusion and resentment among some of the public officers sought to be protected, as well as concern on the part of advocates for the mentally impaired," it said.

Attorney-General Michael Mischin said assaults against police had fallen 33 per cent since the laws were introduced.

But the review reveals that St John Ambulance Service does not believe the laws are acting as a deterrent for assaults on its officers, with about a dozen paramedics assaulted each year and no examples of the laws being used in these cases.

Though the ambulance service supported the laws, it said police procedures after assaults were bureaucratic and officers felt it was preferable not to report assaults if they did not end up in court.

Chief Magistrate Steven Heath said the mandatory jail terms had led to more accused people denying charges. But Mr Heath said because of the relatively small number of charges under the laws, the higher rate of not-guilty pleas was not significant in the court's overall workload.

Shadow attorney-general John Quigley said the review was inconclusive and it had recognised the need for further analysis.