Two Systems of Justice
Adult Crime, Adult Time … Unsplash
In May 2025, the Queensland Government passed amendments from the Making Queensland Safer (Adult Crime, Adult Time) Bill 2025 (QLD), which covers 33 offences.[1] These expansions have been orchestrated to hold youth accountable for offences such as murder, robbery and dangerous driving.[2] The modifications aim to reassure Queensland communities that serious infractions will not go unanswered, regardless of age.
However, as these laws remould the youth justice landscape in Queensland by inserting new offences into section 175A of the Youth Justice Act 1992, they raise a deeper question.[3]
Will the impacts of these amendments be felt equally by all young Queenslanders, or will some be disproportionately affected?
A Major Shift in Youth Justice
The “Adult Crime, Adult Time” approach means that young offenders (as young as 14) can face adult sentencing for a list of violent or dangerous crimes. These changes include offences such as:
Attempt to murder, which now carries a maximum life imprisonment sentence rather than the previous maximum for youth offenders. This was previously ten years to life imprisonment if the act was ‘particularly heinous in all the circumstances.’ [4]
Going armed to cause fear, which under the Adult Crime, Adult Time approach, is punishable by a maximum of 2 years' imprisonment or a maximum of three years' imprisonment with aggravating circumstances. Previously, this sentence carried a term of one to one and a half years imprisonment, with circumstances of aggravation.[5]
Additionally, the Adult Crime, Adult Time laws stipulate that Queensland courts cannot consider detention as a last resort; all offenders are preferred to remain within their community, giving courts greater freedom to impose custodial sentences. Moreover, if a child is found guilty of any offence, the new amendments require courts to primarily assess the impact of the offence on any victim when sentencing.
Public Safety or Unequal Impact?
While widespread public support for tough-on-crime measures stems from high-profile cases involving juvenile offenders, many legal experts and social advocates have raised concerns about how these laws might disproportionately affect specific demographics of Queensland’s youth.
Specifically, Queensland’s criminal justice system already has a significant overrepresentation of Indigenous adolescents. They make up over half of the adolescents in custody, although they are only 8% of the youth population.[6] Many worry that these policies, which include more restrictive sentencing, fewer possibilities for diversions and more use of incarceration, might make this difference even worse.
There are also concerns about young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, including those facing homelessness, family violence, poverty, or trauma. It can be argued that these young people are often the most likely to enter the justice system, but they are the least prepared to handle it successfully.
While the laws are designed to ensure accountability and promote safety, a one-size-fits-all approach may overlook the complex factors underlying the issues discussed. Without a framework that considers personal history, development, and environment, some young people may be sentenced more harshly simply because they had fewer opportunities or support available to them from the outset.
Removing Judicial Discretion
One crucial part of the new laws is the limit on what judges can decide. A court can no longer look at restorative justice orders or community-based orders for many of the 33 offences.[7] It can only send offenders to a type of restorative justice process, such as pre-sentence referrals.[8] This reduces their ability to tailor verdicts to the specific circumstances of the offender. Previous restorative justice orders had encouraged offenders to reflect on their actions and their consequences, allowing victims to ask questions and explain the harm caused by the offence.
Thus, these amendments can restrict flexibility, particularly in cases where a young person has shown remorse, moved towards rehabilitation, and/or was influenced by external influences. The ability to weigh these pressures has been crucial in achieving both accountability and lasting reform.
A Growing Divide?
Treating all youth as adults for serious crimes seems fair in principle, but equality is not limited to having the same rules. It is also about giving everyone an equal chance to succeed. When factors like race, income, or access to legal aid affect how young people interact with the justice system, the results of broad sentencing reforms can become unfair.
Some commentators have warned that this could create a “two-tier” justice system: one for young people with family support, access to good schools, and legal assistance, and another for those who are overlooked.
What Comes Next?
These amendments aim to emphasise public safety and support victims of these offences. However, as these reforms take effect, conversations will continue about how to guarantee the justice system remains strict yet just, balanced, and responsive to the needs of all Queenslanders, especially its youngest.
Youth justice has always aimed to strike a balance between accountability and rehabilitation. Queensland's new sentencing laws represent a clear move toward accountability. Whether this will lead to a safer community or simply a more divided one depends on how these laws are enforced and if all young people are genuinely given a fair chance.
Edited by Anya Maclure
[1] Making Queensland Safer (Adult Crime, Adult Time) Bill 2025 (Qld).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) s 175A.
[4] Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 306.
[5] Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 69.
[6] ‘Indigenous Incarceration and Child Detention - ANTaR QLD’, ANTaR QLD (PDF, 5 July 2024) <https://antarqld.org.au/indigenous-encarceration/>.
[7] Ibid n1.
[8] ‘Adult Crime, Adult Time Expands to 33 Offences’, Qld.gov.au (23 May 2025) <https://www.qld.gov.au/makingqldsafer/adult-crime-adult-time-expands-to-33-offences>.