The debate over good character in criminal sentencing has returned to the foreground in New South Wales, driven by a high-profile campaign and a detailed legal review. Advocates such as Harrison James and Jarad Grice, founders of the Your Reference Ain’t Relevant campaign, have argued that references to an accused person’s reputation can retraumatise victims and unduly influence sentences. The Minns Labor government responded with legislation intended to remove good character as a mitigating factor across all offences. The proposal has exposed a sharp split between calls for broad reform and concerns about unintended consequences for marginalised people.
At the core of the issue is how courts should treat evidence described as “good character”. Under existing NSW practice judges may accept written references, testimonials of community service or assertions that offending was “out of character” when deciding sentence. Critics say that the term is imprecise and tends to advantage socially privileged defendants, while supporters argue it helps tailor punishment to individual circumstances. There is also a statutory special rule from 2008 that already restricts how character can be used in child sexual offence cases, highlighting that the law has tried to balance these competing concerns for some time.
Review findings and the wider push for change
A comprehensive inquiry by the NSW Sentencing Council followed advocacy from campaigners and produced a recommendation to abolish good character as a mitigating consideration altogether. After nearly 170 submissions and broad consultation, the council concluded the concept was vague, applied inconsistently and risked biasing outcomes in favour of certain defendants. The recommendation, however, was not unanimous. Two council members, Felicity Graham and Richard Wilson SC, filed a dissent arguing that judges should retain discretion to weigh character on a case-by-case basis rather than face a blanket prohibition. The split itself underscored the complexity of balancing fairness, judicial discretion and victim-survivor protection.
Parliamentary manoeuvres and political responses
In response to the Sentencing Council’s work, the Minns Government tabled a bill to remove good character as a factor across the criminal code. Labor spokespeople framed the measure as a way to reduce retraumatisation of victim-survivors, arguing that character references should not lessen sentences for violent or sexual crimes. The proposal prompted immediate crossbench and opposition scrutiny: while the Greens and the Coalition supported strengthening protections for victims of sexual offences, both parties resisted a total abolition on the grounds it could harm vulnerable groups. Organisations such as the Aboriginal Legal Service, Domestic Violence NSW, Legal Aid NSW, the NSW Bar Association and the Law Society NSW warned that eliminating the concept entirely might disproportionately affect people already overrepresented in the justice system.
What the Upper House changed
After debate, the Upper House adopted amendments that significantly narrowed Labor’s original plan. The revised text now abolishes good character as a mitigating factor specifically for sexual offences while leaving it available in non-sexual matters. The amendment also preserves judicial flexibility by allowing judges to assign little or no weight to character evidence where appropriate. In effect, the chamber rejected a blanket removal while endorsing a targeted rule intended to protect victims of sexual crimes from hearing references that could downplay harm during sentencing hearings.
Next steps and the likely implications
With the Upper House changes agreed, the bill will return to the Legislative Assembly for a final decision. The Minns Government must choose whether to accept the amendments or press to restore the broader abolition. Premier statements suggest a willingness to progress the narrowed reform, but campaigners remain committed to securing stronger protections. If the bill is passed in its amended form, courts will no longer consider character references in sexual offence sentencing, while retaining discretion in other contexts. That outcome would mark a significant shift in practice, reflecting survivor-led reform but also leaving open debates about judicial discretion and the fair treatment of marginalised defendants.
The parliamentary process illuminates a broader tension between uniform rules and individualized justice. Removing good character entirely would create a bright-line standard; restricting it to sexual offences aims for a targeted remedy. Both paths seek to protect victim-survivors and improve confidence in sentencing, yet both carry trade-offs for vulnerable communities. Observers and stakeholders will be watching the return to the lower house closely, knowing that the final vote will shape how NSW courts balance reputation, mercy and accountability in sentencing for years to come.