Victorians would gain access to detailed Children’s Court sentencing data for the first time under an opposition plan to widen public scrutiny of how courts apply the state’s criminal laws.
The Liberals and Nationals have pledged to expand the Sentencing Advisory Council’s SACStat database if they win the November state election, adding Children’s Court outcomes alongside more detailed anonymised information on sentencing ranges, trends and the time courts take to deliver judgments after trials have concluded.
The proposal would fill a clear gap in the existing database. SACStat currently publishes sentencing outcomes for hundreds of offences dealt with in Victoria’s Magistrates’, County and Supreme courts, but does not provide the same searchable service for the Children’s Court. The database was last updated in November 2025, with the periods covered varying between court levels.
Opposition Leader Jess Wilson said greater access to sentencing information was necessary to build confidence in the system. “Victorians deserve to have confidence in our justice system, and that starts with greater transparency about the sentences being handed down.”
“Just as we track crime data across the state, we will track sentencing data so Victorians can see what is happening in our courts,” Wilson said.
The policy comes as youth crime and sentencing become increasingly prominent issues ahead of the election, but it also enters an area where the Labor government has already made substantial changes.
The Victorian opposition has promised to expand public access to sentencing data, including Children’s Court outcomes, as it pushes for greater scrutiny of how courts apply penalties set by Parliament
Since February, Victoria’s Adult Time for Violent Crime laws have required children aged 14 and over charged with specified serious violent offences to face adult courts and adult sentencing in certain circumstances. The changes shifted some of the most serious youth cases out of the Children’s Court and increased the emphasis on community safety and victims in sentencing.
That means an expanded Children’s Court database would provide a clearer picture of the large volume of offending that remains within the youth jurisdiction, but would not by itself capture every serious case involving a child.
The Coalition’s argument also goes beyond publication of statistics. It wants to strengthen the Sentencing Advisory Council so it can independently initiate reviews of sentencing trends and practices and examine whether sentencing reflects the intention of legislation and community expectations.
Wilson said the information would allow the public to assess the relationship between penalties legislated by Parliament and outcomes in court. “When Parliament sets tough penalties for serious crimes, Victorians should be able to see whether those penalties are actually being reflected in sentencing decisions.”
That comparison, however, is not straightforward. Maximum penalties set by Parliament are among the factors courts consider, rather than a prescribed sentence for an offence. Victorian sentencing law also requires courts to consider the seriousness of the offending, the offender’s culpability, victim impact, guilty pleas, aggravating and mitigating circumstances and established sentencing principles including proportionality.
Children are also sentenced under a different framework from adults. Rehabilitation remains a central consideration in youth sentencing, alongside community protection, the circumstances of the child and the impact of offending on victims.
Those distinctions mean sentencing statistics can show patterns and changes over time, but raw comparisons between a statutory maximum and the sentence imposed do not necessarily establish whether a court has applied Parliament’s law as intended.
Shadow Attorney-General James Newbury said the Coalition wanted the data presented in a form accessible to people outside the legal system. “Victorians should not need to be a lawyer to understand how our sentencing laws are being applied. We will make sentencing information clearer, more accessible and easier to understand.”
The Sentencing Advisory Council already has statutory responsibilities to collect and publish sentencing information, conduct research, gauge public opinion and advise the Attorney-General. It describes itself as an independent statutory body and an advisory rather than appellate body, with no power to review sentences in individual cases.
The Coalition has not detailed how its proposed power to independently initiate reviews would differ from the council’s existing ability to undertake research and projects, or whether legislative amendments would be required to broaden its role.
Labor has also already asked the council to conduct a comprehensive review of the Sentencing Act 1991, backed by almost $3 million in the 2026-27 budget. That review is examining whether Victoria’s sentencing framework remains clear, consistent and aligned with community expectations, including the treatment of victims, with a final report due in mid-2028.
The competing approaches therefore overlap in part. Labor has commissioned a long-term examination of the sentencing framework and changed the treatment of serious youth offending, while the Coalition is placing greater emphasis on routinely publishing court outcomes and giving the advisory council a stronger scrutiny role.
Newbury said, “Strengthening the Sentencing Advisory Council will provide greater scrutiny of sentencing outcomes and help ensure the laws passed by Parliament are working as intended.”
The opposition has not yet specified the cost of expanding SACStat, how frequently the Children’s Court information would be updated or precisely what anonymised information would be published. Those details will be important in a jurisdiction where cases involving children require particular care around identification.
What the proposal would establish more clearly is a public statistical record of sentences imposed in a court that is currently absent from SACStat. Whether those figures strengthen confidence in sentencing, or intensify arguments over individual outcomes, would depend heavily on how much context accompanies the numbers.
Support Independent Community Journalism
Dear Reader,The Indian Sun exists for one reason: to tell stories that might otherwise go unheard.
We report on local councils, state politics, small businesses and cultural festivals. We focus on the Indian diaspora and the wider multicultural community with care, balance and accountability. We publish in print and online, send regular newsletters and produce video content. We also run media training programs to help community organisations share their own stories.
We operate independently.
Community journalism does not have the backing of large media corporations. Advertising revenue fluctuates. Platform algorithms change. Costs continue to rise. Yet the need for credible, grounded reporting in a multicultural Australia has never been greater.
When you support The Indian Sun, you support:
• Independent reporting on issues affecting migrant communities
• Coverage of local and state decisions that shape daily life
• A platform for small businesses and community groups
• Media training that builds skills within the community
• Journalism accountable to readers
We cannot cover everything, but we work to cover what matters.
If you value thoughtful reporting that reflects Australia’s diversity, we invite you to contribute. Every donation helps us maintain the quality and consistency of our work.
Please consider making a contribution today.
Thank you for your support.
The Indian Sun Team
