Courts should be open to criticism – but not undue pressure
17 February 2026
There has been robust – at times heated – public debate about the justice system’s response to offending involving assaults on emergency workers.
Recently, senior members of SAPOL and the police union have been critical of the suspended sentence given to a woman found guilty of attacking a police officer with a bottle. The head of the Police Association of South Australia even suggested that judges should be “put under some sort of heat” by the media.
The purpose of this piece is not to interrogate these criticisms or justify the court’s decision.
The offence in question was serious, and no emergency worker, or anyone for that matter, should be subject to such violence in the course of their job.
However, it is critical that the facts about any court matter are presented as objectively and holistically as possible, so that our critiques of the justice system can be well-informed.
Public confidence in our institutions of justice is paramount, and this can only be achieved if the public is given the full picture.
The fact is, sometimes the courts get it wrong.
That is why there is a mechanism built into the justice system to correct wrong decisions – the appeal process.
If a party believes that the judge made an error during the trial process, or some other miscarriage of justice occurred, or the evidence presented was not strong enough to warrant a guilty verdict, they can seek to appeal a judgment.
Sentences can also be appealed by both the prosecution and defence, but there are important limitations to these appeal rights.
If a defendant thinks their sentence was too harsh, they can seek to appeal the sentence. For example, a defendant could argue that the sentence was manifestly excessive, or the judge did not properly consider relevant sentencing factors.
The Court of Appeal can only grant an appeal if any of these arguments hold sufficient weight, and is satisfied that the error would have had a material effect on the outcome.
The DPP can only appeal a sentence if it believes it was so “manifestly inadequate” that it would shake public confidence in the administration of justice. The DPP cannot appeal just because it thinks the sentence should have been a bit harsher, or because a particular sentence has been the subject of critical media coverage.
As Chief Justice Kourakis recently noted on radio, the DPP in the police assault matter did not make any submission opposing a suspended sentence. This suggests that both the defence and prosecution did not take issue, knowing all the facts, with a suspended sentence as an outcome.
There are strict timelines around appeals. A party must file a notice with the court within 21 days of the conviction or sentence that they wish to appeal. Typically, the sentencing outcome would be conveyed to the Office of the DPP shortly after sentence has been handed down as a DPP solicitor would be in Court to take sentence. In this matter, the DPP missed the deadline to lodge an appeal.
Sentencing considerations
Sentencing a guilty person is a complex task that requires a judge to consider and weigh up a number of factors. Some of these factors include:
- The magnitude of the offence
- The deterrent effect of a sentence
- The impact on community safety
- The convicted person's chances of rehabilitation
- The degree of remorse demonstrated by the convicted person
- The personal circumstances of the convicted person and their dependents.
In this case, the judge weighed up competing considerations – the expectation to deliver a sentence that reflects the public’s condemnation of the crime, versus the extremely difficult personal challenges facing the defendant’s family, as well as her lack of criminal history and sincere remorse.
Importantly, the court must be satisfied that any hardship to dependants must be “exceptional” for it to be factored into sentencing.
In this matter, the judge noted that the woman is a single mother from a remote area with four young children, one of whom has a serious disability that needs a high level of care.
Sometimes, an offence is so serious that innocent, vulnerable family members will suffer as a result of the defendant being imprisoned. In this instance, the judge considered that the needs of the defendant’s children outweighed the public good that would result in putting her in jail, particularly given this behaviour appeared out of character.
The courts should not be shielded from criticism. The principle of open justice requires the courts to be transparent and open to critique. But it is also the case that the judiciary should not be criticised based on an incomplete, inaccurate or otherwise selective presentation of facts. More importantly, we should be careful to ensure that the State or Executive never seek to influence or otherwise alter the way in which the law is applied and interpreted in South Australia.
Craig Caldicott and Tony Kerin
Co-Chairs of the Law Society’s Criminal Law Committee