Are men at a disadvantage?
Twice-convicted drug trafficker, Sorayah Louise Constant, was sentenced to serve at least 18 months of jail time for drug offences in late April 2016. The District Court heard that Constant had placed orders for medications containing pseudo-ephedrine from overseas in April 2016. This was estimated to produce over $102,000 worth of methamphetamine. Given that this most recent crime was in breach of Constant’s previously instated good behaviour bond, the Court had originally sentenced Constant to jail time as a method of general deterrence. At the time, Constant had an 18-month-old child and was heavily pregnant with her second child.
A few months after the original sentencing, the Court of Criminal Appeal set aside her sentence on the grounds of leniency. Constant’s lawyer argued that the absence of any mother and babies facility in Adelaide’s women’s prison would not only strain her client’s relationship with her toddler but also prevent her from being able to breastfeed her second child. Cumulatively, the defence maintained that the Court should consider the severity of the separation hardship that would eventuate. After considering the relationship of the mother and daughter and the potential implications the sentence would have on the relationship between the mother and her unborn child, the Court has recently re-sentenced Constant to serve an 18 month good behaviour bond.
The bond was also issued on the basis that Constant will remain under the supervision of a corrections officer for four months and undergo drug and rehabilitation counselling. Following the re-sentencing, Ms Stokes confirmed Constant’s overwhelming relief in being granted the freedom to move interstate to rekindle her relationship with her eldest child and her partner.
The re-sentencing of Constant’s crime has eventuated in controversy, with the public scrutinising judicial inconsistencies and weakness that has become apparent. Ultimately, a major issue that all participants in the courtroom – namely magistrates and judges – face is striking a balance between judicial impartiality and not delivering injustice. In the matter at hand, many believe that the Court was guilt tripped into suspending Constant’s sentence on the grounds that her maternal responsibilities far outweighed her responsibility as an Australian citizen to face just punishment for her crimes. In most instances, the Court does not tend to be lenient to those that have committed indictable offences.
Furthermore, the controversial opinions stemming from this case have highlighted the need for consistency and change in judicial mentality. For instance, would such an outcome have been reached if the defendant was a male? While the argument of breastfeeding is eliminated, it seems unlikely that the Court would consider the relationship between a father and his children as highly as that discussed in the case, due to its tendency to revert to traditional societal values and customs when reaching a verdict. The case of Sorayah Constant, however, proves that much is still to be done to ensure that all citizens, irrespective of gender and backgrounds, are treated fairly and equally under the law.
If you believe you have faced discrimination in any situation, please do not hesitate to contact us on 02 8917 8700 or fill out the enquiry box and we will get back to you ASAP.