WA Chief Justice questions plan to ban character references for convicted criminals

Western Australia Chief Justice Peter Quinlan has raised concerns about proposed changes to the State sentencing laws that would prevent convicted offenders from using positive character references to seek reduced sentences.

The proposal follows public outrage over the sentencing of former Western Power manager Jeffrey David Spinner, who was jailed for raping a female colleague and received favourable references from workmates.

The Government argues the changes would prevent offenders with professional standing, influential connections or strong community reputations from receiving favourable treatment.

Chief Justice Quinlan says the issue requires careful consideration, warning that character evidence can sometimes provide judges with important information about an offender rehabilitation prospects.

His comments, made during an interview with ABC Radio Perth on Monday, have brought renewed attention to the question of how courts should balance victims experiences, individual circumstances and the principles of criminal sentencing.

The case that sparked the reform

In June 2026, Jeffrey David Spinner, 59, was sentenced to five years in prison after being convicted of four counts of raping a female Western Power colleague during a work trip in 2024.

The court heard the woman was heavily intoxicated when Spinner took her to his hotel room and sexually assaulted her.

During sentencing, District Court Judge Gary Massey considered eight positive character references submitted on Spinner behalf. The references described him as a respected colleague with professional integrity and strong personal values.

The judge considered Spinner previous good character when determining his sentence, while also acknowledging the seriousness of the offences and their consequences for the victim.

Three current Western Power employees who provided supportive references were subsequently stood down and, following an internal investigation, dismissed in September. The case also prompted an independent review of workplace culture at the government owned electricity distributor.

Government moves to end the good bloke defence

On 25 August 2026, the Cook Government announced plans to remove the use of good character references as a mitigating factor in sentencing for all criminal offences.

The Government had already been preparing legislation to restrict the practice in child sexual abuse cases, following recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The Western Power case prompted it to expand the proposed reforms to every criminal offence.

Attorney General Tony Buti argued that victims should not be subjected to offenders relying on favourable descriptions from friends or colleagues in an attempt to reduce their sentences. He also raised concerns that perpetrators of sexual offences may have relied on their trusted reputations to gain access to victims.

The Government says the reforms would reduce the potential for unequal treatment between offenders with extensive personal or professional networks and those without similar connections. Importantly, the proposal would not prevent courts from considering relevant rehabilitation prospects, an offender lack of prior convictions or other personal circumstances.

The legislation is still being drafted and has not yet become law.

Chief Justice warns against losing important evidence

Speaking to ABC Radio Perth on 12 October 2026, Chief Justice Quinlan said judges already exercise discretion when assessing the relevance and reliability of character references.

He acknowledged that a favourable reputation could be irrelevant or even aggravating in certain circumstances. A child sex offender reputation as a trusted teacher, he explained, could be the very thing that enabled the offending. In such cases, evidence of the offender standing in the community may offer little assistance in reducing a sentence.

However, the Chief Justice also identified circumstances where information from employers, family members or other people familiar with an offender could help a court understand the person prospects of rehabilitation.

He recalled sentencing a young man who had seriously injured another person during a fight outside a hotel. An employer provided evidence describing the young man remorse, discussions about the offending and willingness to help him change his behaviour. According to the Chief Justice, the information was sufficiently relevant that prosecutors reconsidered their original position and supported a suspended sentence.

The example highlighted his concern that a blanket prohibition could unintentionally remove evidence relevant to deciding whether an offender should serve an immediate prison term or remain in the community under supervision.

Chief Justice Quinlan did not publicly endorse or reject the Government proposal. Instead, he stressed the need to carefully consider how the legislation would operate across the wide variety of circumstances that come before criminal courts.

Not all character references serve the same purpose

One of the central issues is the difference between a reference praising an offender reputation and evidence addressing their rehabilitation.

A general reference may describe someone as trustworthy, respected or a valued member of the community. A different type of reference may explain whether the offender has accepted responsibility, demonstrated remorse, maintained employment or has genuine support to avoid further offending.

Those distinctions matter because sentencing courts consider more than punishment alone. Depending on the offence and circumstances, judges must also consider community protection, deterrence, rehabilitation and the offender individual circumstances. The Government says those relevant considerations will remain available under the proposed reforms.

The question is how the legislation will distinguish impermissible character references from otherwise admissible evidence about rehabilitation and support. Until the final wording is released, the practical boundaries remain uncertain.

Could the reforms have unintended consequences?

The Government proposed ban is intended to address concerns about fairness and the treatment of victims. Its central argument is that an offender should not receive a reduced sentence because influential friends, colleagues or family members describe them favourably.

Victim advocates have argued that positive character references can also be distressing for survivors, particularly when they portray a person convicted of serious offences as fundamentally decent or respectable.

The Chief Justice comments raise a different concern, whether excluding an entire category of evidence could prevent courts from receiving information that is relevant to sentencing decisions. This is particularly important in cases involving younger offenders, first time offenders and people whose rehabilitation prospects may be supported by employers or family members.

A carefully designed reform could potentially exclude unsupported claims about an offender good reputation while continuing to allow evidence demonstrating practical rehabilitation arrangements. Whether the Government legislation will achieve this remains to be seen.

What happens next?

The WA Government has indicated it intends to introduce the legislation into Parliament in 2027. Attorney General Tony Buti has said the legal profession and other stakeholders will be consulted during the drafting process.

Chief Justice Quinlan comments are therefore significant because they come before the final legislation has been settled. They raise questions about how the proposed changes will operate in practice, what evidence courts will remain entitled to consider and how judges will assess an offender rehabilitation prospects.

The debate also extends beyond sexual offences. Because the Government intends to apply the changes to all criminal sentencing matters, the eventual legislation could affect cases involving violence, dishonesty, property offences and other criminal conduct.

A question of fairness for victims and offenders

The Western Power case exposed serious concerns about the use of positive character references for offenders convicted of sexual violence. It also demonstrated why victims may question whether an offender professional standing should have any influence over their punishment.

The Government proposed reforms seek to address those concerns and improve confidence in the sentencing process. The Chief Justice comments highlight the importance of ensuring the legislation does not prevent courts from considering evidence relevant to rehabilitation.