Ending “Good Character” as a Shield: A Summary of the 2026 Sentencing Reform

The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character at Sentencing) Bill 2026 (NSW) represents a significant shift in how courts approach sentencing. At its core, the Bill removes the ability for offenders to rely on “good character” as a mitigating factor when a court determines their sentence.

Under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), courts must consider a range of aggravating and mitigating factors when sentencing an offender. Historically, an offender’s “good character” — often demonstrated through references, testimonials, education and employment certificates, reputation, or prior positive conduct — has been treated as a mitigating factor capable of reducing the severity of a sentence.

The law already limits good character evidence in sentencing of child sexual assault offenders, where the good character or lack of previous convictions of an offender was of assistance to the offender in the commission of the offence.

The proposed Bill removes “good character” as a mitigating factor in sentencing across all criminal offences. It will also prevent courts from considering evidence introduced solely to establish good character, such as character references or evidence of reputation. The Bill is the result of the Your Reference Ain’t Relevant campaign, led by child sexual abuse survivors Harrison James and Jarad Grice, advocates for banning “good character” references in sentencing for child sex offenders. The campaign argues that these references re-traumatise victims and reward perpetrators. 

Importantly, the reform does not prevent courts from considering other personal factors. Judges may still consider matters such as prospects of rehabilitation, likelihood of reoffending and prior criminal history (or lack thereof). The distinction is that these factors must relate to sentencing purposes — not to a generalised assessment that the offender is a “good person”.

The Your Reference Ain’t Relevant campaign called for a ban on good character evidence in sentencing of convicted paedophiles, but it did not call for a ban on good character evidence across the board in all criminal law proceedings. Yet that is where NSW is now headed.

In April 2024, the NSW Sentencing Council reviewed the law surrounding good character evidence. After extensive consultation, the NSW Sentencing Council recommended abolishing good character as a mitigating factor in sentencing. This recommendation was then drafted into the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character at Sentencing) Bill 2026 (NSW), which was introduced to Parliament on 4 February 2026. The law is pending royal assent.

Several key concerns drove the reform:

1. Impact on victim-survivors
Many victim-survivors reported that hearing offenders described as “good” or “respected” in court was deeply distressing and retraumatising.

2. Inequality and privilege
Access to persuasive character references often depends on an offender’s social standing, education, or professional networks, raising concerns that the principle disproportionately benefits more privileged offenders.

3. Conceptual vagueness
“Good character” is not clearly defined at law and may not reliably indicate reduced culpability or lower risk of reoffending.

Despite broad support from victim advocacy groups, the reform has not been without criticism.

Some legal stakeholders argue that removing good character may limit judicial discretion, reducing a court’s ability to tailor sentences to individual circumstances. “Sentencing the whole person” is a core principle of our criminal legal system, meaning that offending should be considered within the full context of the offender’s life, such as their contributions to community, caregiving responsibilities and positive relationships with friends and family.

As highlighted in Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465,

The purposes of criminal punishment are various: protection of society, deterrence of the offender and of others who might be tempted to offend, retribution and reform. The purposes overlap and none of them can be considered in isolation from the others when determining what is an appropriate sentence in a particular case.

Judicial discretion is therefore paramount to the delicate and considered balancing act that is the sentencing exercise. It does not serve anyone, not the offender, nor the victim(s), nor society at large, to treat sentencing as a standardised procedure, without due contemplation of the individual and specific circumstances of the offence.

We would also raise that many criminal offences are victimless offences or cause minimal harm. Does it truly support the principles of fairness and proportionality in sentencing to prevent non-violent or first offenders from relying on character evidence? In addition, we support the Law Society of NSW’s submissions of 8 April 2026[1]. In its submissions, the President said:

We do not recommend extending section 21A(5A) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) to all sentence proceedings for child sexual offending. Our members report that currently, particularly with the benefit of common law such as Ryan v The Queen (2000) 118 A Crim 438, evidence of good character is given little to no weight on sentencing for child sexual offences. We note, and support, the view put forward by Legal Aid NSW in its preliminary submission to the NSW Sentencing Council, “despite the limited impact of good character evidence on sentencing in these matters, we do not consider that it should be altogether removed as a mitigating factor. In our view, it is important to preserve judicial discretion in sentencing for child sexual offending, where the spectrum of offending is broad, in terms of the seriousness of the conduct involved and the circumstances particular to the offender.”

If enacted, the Bill will have immediate and tangible impacts on criminal law proceedings in NSW:

• character references will no longer carry mitigating weight at sentence for any criminal offences;
• defence strategies will shift toward objective factors such as rehabilitation, remorse, and risk; and
• sentencing hearings may become less focused on personal reputation and more focused on conduct and harm.

In considering this Bill and its potential consequences, we must consider not only the cases which brought about its inception, but also those that have not been the focus of the campaign against character evidence.

It is easy to sympathise with the argument that offenders with a history of child sexual abuse should not benefit from leniency in sentencing on the basis of good character evidence. But what about victims of domestic violence who are charged with assault after enduring years of abuse? Or illicit drug users with no history of violence, who are loving family members and strong contributors to their communities and workplaces? Is it really in the interest of the criminal justice system and all offenders before it, to be categorically prevented from relying on good character evidence in all circumstances?

That being said, the abolition of good character evidence does not preclude an offender’s history and context from being considered in sentencing. Other mitigating factors, such as prospects of rehabilitation, lack of a criminal history, low risk of reoffending, and relevant mental health conditions or disability, will still be taken into account if the Bill passes. The Amendment Bill only proposes to abolish evidence which is introduced purely to speak to an offender’s character, and not any of the other mitigating factors under s 21A(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character at Sentencing) Bill 2026 marks a decisive move away from reputation-based mitigation in NSW sentencing law. By removing “good character” from consideration, the reform aims to prioritise accountability, consistency, and the experiences of victim-survivors. It remains to be seen whether this reform will have a net negative or positive impact on justice and fairness for offenders and victim-survivors involved in criminal proceedings in NSW.

[1] Law Society of NSW, 8 April 2026, Letter to the Chair of the Portfolio Committee No. 5 of the NSW Legislative Council regarding Inquiry into Good Character at Sentencing