Good Character No Longer a Mitigating Factor (NSW)
The New South Wales government has announced that it will be pursuing the passage of legislation that will abolish good character as a mitigating factor at sentencing. The move follows recommendations by the NSW Sentencing Council last year, and widespread concern about ‘good character’ being used to secure lenient sentences. This page outlines the proposed changes and why they are being introduced.
Legislation
The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Good Character at Sentencing) Bill 2026 is currently before the New South Wales parliament.
If passed, it will amend the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to prevent a person’s good character from being taken into account when a court is determining the appropriate sentence to impose.
Section 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 set out the matters that can be taken into account as mitigating factors at sentencing. These include the defendant’s good character, as well as other matters such as that the defendant is unlikely to reoffend, that the defendant does not have any previous convictions, and that the defendant has good prospects of rehabilitation.
The Bill introduces a clause stating that courts must not consider evidence that is adduced purely for the purpose of establishing good character.
History of character evidence
Historically, New South Wales courts have been obliged to take evidence of the defendant’s good character into account at sentencing if it is relevant and known to the court.
In 2008, an exception was introduced in relation to child sex offences. Character references are no longer admissible in such matters if the offender’s reputation or prior good character assisted them in committing the offences.
After the 2008 reform, advocates and victim-survivors started campaigning against the use of character evidence at sentencing in any child sex matter, regardless of whether or not it assisted the offender to commit the offence.
Sentencing Council recommendations
In 2025, the NSW Sentencing Council tabled a report into the use of evidence of good character in the state, in which I’m a majority of members recommended that good character be abolished as a mitigating factor at sentencing for all criminal matters.
In its report, the Sentencing Council noted the experience of victims, who described having their abuser described as ‘a person of good character’ as ‘deeply retraumatising’. Victims described feeling that evidence of good character minimises the offending and that the defendant’s reputation seemed to be treated as more important than the harm they had caused.
The report noted the long history of the use of character evidence in Australian and British courts, and the various justifications that exist for the practice, including that if a person is of overall good character, it is more likely that the offending was ‘out of character’ for them, and that a generally moral person is less deserving of punishment.
Where there is evidence of a defendant’s good character, the court is not free to give this evidence no weight at all in mitigation — the person is entitled to some leniency — however the wait to be given to this evidence may vary from case to case.
However, the Sentencing Council found that there is no sufficient justification for evidence of good character being treated as a mitigating factor. It found that the concept of good character is vague and uncertain and does not have a settled definition, and that giving weight to such evidence rewards a person for irrelevant good deeds and for having a good reputation.
It found that good character as a mitigating factor contributes to inequality, as some social groups have greater access to credible character references than others, with evidence before the council that middle class white men benefit the most.
It accepted submissions that some offending is too serious to be mitigated by evidence of good character.
Factors that may still be considered
If the proposed changes are passed, sentencing courts will still be able to consider other mitigating factors that are related to character, such as the defendant’s prospects of rehabilitation, absence of criminal record, and likelihood of reoffending.
Responses to the proposed changes
The proposed changes have been met with a lot of support from advocates and victim-survivors who say that character evidence should not be used to minimise offending. Others have also praised the decision, saying that it will prevent offenders from using their social standing to secure a lenient sentence.
The changes have also been criticised for reducing the discretion of the courts and making it harder for judges to tailor sentences to individual circumstances. Concerns have also been expressed that the change my lead to harsher and more punitive sentences overall.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
Fernanda Dahlstrom is a writer, editor and lawyer. She holds a Bachelor of Laws (Latrobe University), a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice (College of Law), a Bachelor of Arts (The University of Melbourne) and a Master of Arts (Deakin University). Fernanda practised law for eight years, working in criminal law, child protection and domestic violence law in the Northern Territory, and in family law in Queensland.