The ‘Good’ Character
…Unsplash
New South Wales is about to end the use of good character references in sentencing for sexual offences. Under section 21A(3)(f) the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the court may consider a mitigating factor a ‘good character’ of a convicted person.[i] The components of a ‘good character’ can fit into three broad categories which are criminal record, general reputation and meritorious conduct.[ii] Nevertheless, section 5A introduced a ‘special rule’ according to which this is not to be considered for child sexual offences.[iii] This reform proposes to extend the ban on good character references to all sexual offences while still permitting the address of the convicted person’s remorse, chances of rehabilitation as well as the likelihood of reoffending.[iv]
References to ‘good character’ have always been a subject of discussion, particularly in the context of crimes such as sexual and domestic violence. Even though these offences remain a prevailing problem in virtually every society and culture, they are often not met with an adequate response from the justice system and survivors have negative experiences when they attempt to exercise legal avenues.[v] The ALRC reported that survivors often felt that they did not have agency during the proceeding and thought the court fell short to recognise the serious impact of the offence.[vi] Notably, the Commission considered the evidence of a ‘good character’ to be problematic.[vii] One of the main reasons why they are such a contentious issue in this context is due to the fact that for this type of crime to be committed, offenders frequently demonstrate exceptionally charming and excellent personalities in order to manipulate and entrap their victims.[viii] The case law created a distinction[1] [2] as to when exactly a good character reference can be used nevertheless, it was argued that it is a false distinction due to the unique dynamics in abuse cases in which an offender's character is almost always used to gain access to victims and offend.[ix] Therefore, depending on the application of the rule, if people convicted of those crimes can have their sentence mitigated based on their ‘good character’ it enables a convicted person to be rewarded for the behaviour used to commit the offence.
There is also to consider the well-being of victims of crimes. The criminal justice system has been largely operating with a focus on the offenders.[x] It prioritises prosecution and punishment. Meanwhile, many victims had described hearing a perpetrator being described as a person of ‘good character’ to be deeply retraumatising as they felt as if the offender’s reputation mattered more than the harm that they caused.[xi] One submission noted these character references sends a message that crimes ‘are somehow less serious when committed by someone who appears respectable’.[xii] Combined with the fact that certain crimes are less likely to be successfully prosecuted than others this leads to criminal proceedings frequently proving to be a secondary victimisation affecting their trust in the system and faith in justice.[xiii] Hence, those in favour of the reform often focus on the perspective of victims of crimes, emphasising that individuals should not have to listen to the person who harmed them being described as a good person. This may reduce the severity of the offence, invalidating victim experiences and fails toprovide them with a just outcome.
Nevertheless, there has also been a critique when it comes to abolishing good character references. Particularly, the NSW Bar Association has expressed their opposition to abandon the use of these references on the following grounds. First, courts should be able to view a convicted person in their full context and the consideration of a good character can be a critical component of the sentencing process.[xiv] The Association referred to the case of Ryan v The Queen [2001] for the principle of individualised justice which requires to consider the offender as a whole person.[xv] Secondly, it was argued abolishing references may disproportionately affect the already disadvantaged offenders, as not all offenders have access to a good character reference as a mitigating factor .[xvi] Nevertheless, the Association noted that there is no doubt that the sentencing process can be traumatic for victims and that the consideration of a ‘good character’ can be interpreted as ‘an attempt by well-connected offenders to minimise the harm they caused’.[xvii] Furthermore, character references may develop existing disadvantages for victims, particularly where the offender's social standing and connections far outweigh those of the victim. As the Association acknowledged, well-connected offenders are better positioned for compelling character evidence, potentially undermining the victim's pursuit of justice. This is a particularly pervasive issue in offences where power imbalances are fundamental components to how the offence was committed.
Overall, it is evident that this reform aims to safeguard the victims’ best interest in this complex and delicate legal issue. Traditionally, the primary focus in criminal proceedings is on the offender but it is acknowledged that this approach often resulted in ‘inadequate protection, limited participation and insufficient redress’ for victims of crime.[xviii] When it comes to crimes of which the foundations are power imbalances and deep rooted cultural attitudes, the problematic nature of good character references becomes even more apparent. The recent legal change may indicate a shift towards a more victim-centric approach. Experts have acknowledged justice can not be achieved without ‘recognising and responding to the experiences, needs and rights of victims alongside the prosecution of offenders’.[xix] This is particularly significant for offences notorious for low reporting and conviction rates, where formal recognition and acknowledgment of a person's experience and its impacts is one of the most important things that victims of crime need from the justice system.[xx]
──────────────────────────────────────────
References
[i] Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A(3)(f).
[ii] NSW Sentencing Council, Good character at sentencing (Report, July 2025) 16.
[iii] Ibid, s 5A.
[iv] Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Amendment (Good Character and Sentencing) Bill 2026 (NSW).
[v] Australian Law Reform Commission, Safe, Informed, Supported: Reforming Responses to Sexual Violence (Report No 143 January 2026), 9 [2.21], [2.29].
[vi] Ibid, at 100 [2.31].
[vii] Ibid, at [19.50].
[viii] Carmit Katz and Zion Barnetz, Children’s Narratives of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse Offender Behaviors and the Manipulation Process (2016) 6(2) Psychology of Violence 223, 228.
[ix] Full Stop Australia, NSW Sentencing Council Review of Character in Sentencing (February 2025).
[x] Shambhavi Gour, Victim-Centric Justice in Criminal Law: A Critical Analysis of Victim Protection, Compensation and Restorative Mechanisms, International Journal of Advanced Research and Multidiciplinary Trends (IJARMT) (2026) 3(1), 1.
[xi] NSW Sentencing Council, Good character at sentencing (Report July 2025), 8 [1.41].
[xii] Ibid, [1.42].
[xiii] Uli Orth, Secondary Victimization of Crime Victims by Criminal Proceedings, Social Justice Research (2002) 15(4) 313, 321.
[xiv] New South Wales Bar Association, ‘Inquiry into Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character at Sentencing) Bill 2026’ (Submission No 6, 17 March 2026) [9], [10].
[xv] Ibid, at [9].
[xvi] Ibid, at [11].
[xvii] Ibid, at [12].
[xviii] Shambhavi Gour, Victim-Centric Justice in Criminal Law: A Critical Analysis of VictimProtection, Compensation and Restorative Mechanisms, International Journal of Advanced Research and Multidiciplinary Trends (IJARMT) (2026) 3(1), 1.
[xix] Ibid, at 15.
[xx] Australian Law Reform Commission, Safe, Informed, Supported: Reforming Responses to Sexual Violence (Report No 143 January 2026), 102 [2.40].