The Crimes Amendment Bill, proposed by Minn’s government, would remove the ability for courts to consider good character evidence. Currently, Courts can use good character evidence, such as references, as a mitigating factor for offenders during sentencing proceedings to reduce sentences.
The proposed reform follows recommendations from the NSW Sentencing Council. The Sentencing Council is an independent advisory body with members including judges, prosecutors, criminal defence lawyers, victims’ advocates and police. The Council was asked to look into the issue in 2024. The majority concluded that the issue was “especially complex” but said good character was not an appropriate mitigating factor because it was based on “a vague and uncertain concept” and was an “unjustified form of moral and social accounting” (ABC News).
The NSW Government argues that removing character references would reduce the trauma felt by victims when engaging with the system. The push follows a long, sustained campaign by victim-survivors in this direction.
Under the changes, while judges would still be able to consider factors such as rehabilitation, remorse and prior convictions, they would no longer be permitted to reduce a sentence on the basis of general reputation or standing in the community.
Parliamentary inquiry into the proposed change, as informed by senior legal figures and advocacy groups, have warned the proposal may go too far. Representing the NSW Bar Association, senior counsel Dominic Toomey told the inquiry the reform risks stripping courts of critical context when determining sentences. Mr Toomey argued sentencing required a holistic assessment of both the offence and the individual, warning the bill “would unreasonably limit the ability of the sentencing court to understand the offender as a whole person” (NSW Bar Media Release). The Bar acknowledged community concerns about so-called “privilege discounts” for well-connected offenders, but rejected abolishing good character references entirely.
Critics of the bill have also raised concerns about unintended consequences for vulnerable groups, including domestic violence victims who may be wrongly identified as offenders. While survivor advocacy groups have broadly supported removing good character references in serious cases, some have cautioned against applying the reform across all offences.
The Feminist Legal Clinic supports changes to sentencing laws, but only for serious offences like sexual assault and domestic violence (Feminist Legal Clinic on Good Character Evidence). Domestic Violence NSW acting director Rhiannon Cook backed limits on character evidence in sexual violence cases while warning larger changes could exacerbate systemic issues (Domestic Violence NSW – Submission for Good Character Bill).
Despite the pushback from legal experts, survivor advocates continue to argue the reform is necessary to address harm in the justice system. Child sexual abuse survivor Harrison James told the inquiry the current system could re-traumatise victims by shifting focus away from the offence. James quotes that victim-survivors “should not have to sit in courtrooms and listen to the person who harmed them be described as a good person”. Mr James said good character references were “deeply harmful” and “re-traumatise survivors,” stating they often reflect privilege rather than accountability (ABC News).
As of May 2026, Parliament passed an amended version of the Bill, where good character can no longer be used in sexual abuse sentencing. However, Labor have indicated that this does not go far enough, and are looking to reintroduce the legislation in its broader form to allow these changes to also apply to serious violent crimes.
Clearly, good character evidence is a contentious issue for many. Its availability in sentencing procedures for NSW Courts may continue to evolve as Parliament debates this issue.
Written by Ruby Bickford.
