Every year on International Women’s Day we celebrate women’s achievements and progress. But celebration without safety is hollow.
Across Australia, women are increasingly being killed by violent men. Behind every statistic is a daughter, a sister, a friend whose life was stolen.
My sister Anne-Marie Culleton was only 20 years old when she was stalked, raped and murdered in 1988 by a parolee, Jonathan Bakewell.
Nearly four decades later, the trauma has never ended — because the parole board continues to release her killer despite numerous parole breaches for taking drugs and most recently for stalking. This is alarming giving Bakewell stalked my sister and took drugs before breaking down her back door to rape and murder her in her bed.
It is shocking that this dangerous sexual killer is being repeatedly released, putting the safety of women in the community at risk.
This International Women’s Day, if we are serious about protecting women, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: our parole laws still allow the most dangerous killers of women to be released.
It is time for Restricted Prisoner Legislation to ensure the most heinous murderers are never released back into the community unless they are dying and incapable of harming anyone again.
The Case for Restricted Prisoner Legislation
The legislation I am advocating would create a category of Restricted Prisoners — offenders whose crimes demonstrate such extreme violence and ongoing risk that parole should only be possible in the narrowest circumstances.
The proposed categories include:
Murderers who sexually assaulted their victim
Murderers who stalked their victim, including breaching protection orders
Murderers who committed sadistic acts
Murderers of children
Murderers of two or more victims
Murderers of a police officer
These crimes overwhelmingly target women and children. In a country facing rising levels of femicide, this reform is not radical — it is necessary for public safety.
Under this model, a Restricted Prisoner could only be released if they are:
in imminent danger of dying, and
so seriously incapacitated that they no longer have the physical ability to harm anyone, and
can demonstrate they pose no risk to the community.
When the Parole System Fails
My sister’s killer is currently in custody pending yet another parole hearing by the South Australia Parole Board.
Since being released in 2016, Jonathan Bakewell has breached parole nine times. His most recent breach involved stalking behaviour — the same predatory conduct he used before murdering Anne-Marie.
Even more alarming, he has stalked four different women since his release.
Yet despite these repeated breaches, the parole board has continued to release him.
This is the reality victim families live with: the constant fear that their loved one’s killer will be returned to the community again and again, putting the community at risk.
The parole system forces victims’ families to relive the worst moment of their lives every time parole is reconsidered.
It is a cruel cycle of retraumatisation.
Parole Release of Snow Town Serial Killer James Vlassakis
In what is reported to be a world first, the South Australia Parole Board took the decision in 2025 to release notorious Snowtown Serial Killer James Vlassakis.
The Government appealed the decision on the grounds that the Parole Board had “erred in granting the prisoner’s release on parole”.
In listing his reasons, the Attorney General Kyam Maher, said the board had “failed to give proper weight to” the safety of the community, the likelihood of the prisoner complying with the conditions of parole, the circumstances and gravity of the offence, and any reports tendered to the board under the act.
The Parole Administrative Review Commissioner upheld the government appeal and overturned the parole board decision, finding the board erred in considering community safety and said Vlassakis “would be a risk to the community.”
Despite this, Parole Board Chair Frances Nelson mounted a challenge against the Parole Administrative Review Commissioner in the Supreme Court to overturn his decision.
The Parole Board’s determination to release a serial killer further demonstrates how broken South Australia’s parole system is and the need for strict Restricted Prisoner Legislation to keep the community safe.
Femicide Killers Can Repeatedly Seek Parole Release
In every state and territory femicide killers in prison can repeatedly seek parole release.
This raises a fundamental question:
Who is the system designed to protect — offenders or the community?
The Trauma for Victims’ Families
For victims’ families, parole hearings reopen wounds that never truly heal.
Each hearing forces us to relive:
the details of the murder
the terror our loved one endured
the loss that changed our lives forever
If the offender is released, the trauma deepens. We live with the fear that another woman will become the next victim.
Under current laws, the real life sentence is served by the victim’s family.
This is cruel and it must end.
Australia’s Femicide Crisis
Australia is facing a national crisis of violence against women with murder rates rising.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has publicly acknowledged the growing national crisis of violence against women.
Public protests across the country increasingly reflect community outrage.
In South Australia alone:
four women were murdered in one week in 2023
women have marched and protested outside Parliament House demanding stronger responses to violence against women
The state government established a Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence (South Australia) which reported in 2025.
But despite the scale of the crisis, the Malinauskas Labor government has refused my repeated calls to introducelegislation to strengthen sentencing and parole laws for femicide murders.
Sexual Violence and Femicide
Murders involving sexual assault represent a most extreme form of violence against women.
Criminological research identifies sexual homicide as a distinct category of murder characterised by domination, sexual aggression and humiliation of the victim.
Studies examining sexual homicide offenders show significant rates of violent reoffending among those released.
These crimes are not random. They reflect deeply entrenched patterns of misogynistic and predatory behaviour.
That is why offenders who commit murder with sexual violence must be subject to the strictest possible parole restrictions in which they are not released – unless they are at imminent death and so seriously incapacitated they pose no harm to anyone. The Restricted Prisoner Legislation would ensure this.
Stalking and Femicide
Research examining cases of femicide consistently shows that stalking behaviour is present in a significant proportion of domestic violence murders.
In many cases, stalking intensifies when a woman attempts to leave a relationship, reflecting the perpetrator’s attempt to reassert control.
When a murderer has previously stalked their victim, their behaviour demonstrates fixation, persistence and disregard for legal boundaries.
These behaviours are recognised internationally as indicators of offenders who pose a continuing and serious risk of violence.
That is why offenders who commit murder with stalking, including breaching a protection order, must be a category in the Restricted Prisoner Legislation.
Sadistic Violence and Femicide
Sadistic violence in homicide cases disproportionately affects women.
Femicide murders involving sadistic acts represent one of the most extreme manifestations of violence against women. In these cases, the offender deliberately inflicts prolonged suffering, humiliation or degradation on the victim before or during the killing.
In many cases of femicide involving torture, sexual degradation or prolonged attacks, the victim is targeted within a context of misogyny, sexual domination or coercive control.
Research examining sexual homicide offenders has found that a significant proportion display characteristics consistent with sexual sadism, a condition in which an individual derives arousal or gratification from inflicting pain, fear or humiliation on another person.
Given the extreme brutality associated with sadistic violence, offenders present an ongoing and serious risk to the safety of women and the broader community.
For this reason, offenders who commit murder with sadistic violence must be a category in the Restricted Prisoner Legislation.
Proven Laws Already Exist
The Restricted Prisoner Legislation was modelled on similar laws operating in Victoria and New South Wales:
Victoria’s Corrections Act includes strict provisions preventing parole for:
Murderers of a police officer
Frankston Serial Killer Paul Denyer
Hoddle Street Killer Julian Knight
Russell Street Bomber Craig Minogue
New South Wales first introduced similar legislation in 1999 to prevent parole for the rapist murderers of:
Anita Cobby
Janine Balding
Virginia Morse
These laws have survived multiple High Court challenges and remain constitutionally sound.
There is no legal barrier preventing states and territories from adopting this Restricted Prisoner Legislation.
International Women’s Day Must Deliver Real Change
International Women’s Day should not be reduced to slogans and social media posts.
If we truly want to honour women, we must protect their lives.
Restricted Prisoner Legislation would:
keep the most dangerous killers of women behind bars
reduce the risk of further violence against women
restore public confidence in the parole system
spare victims’ families the lifelong trauma of repeated parole hearings
Most importantly, it would send a clear message:
Women’s lives matter.
This International Women’s Day, the most meaningful commitment our leaders can make is simple:
Make women’s safety the priority — introduce Restricted Prisoner Legislation to ensure the most heinous murderers are never free to harm again.
If you could change the laws to prevent another woman being raped and murdered like Aiia Maasarwe, Eurydice Dixon, Jill Meagher, or my sister, Anne-Marie Culleton, what law would you propose?
NSW Review of Sentencing for Murder and Manslaughter
I also called for rape and murder to be a stand alone crime to reflect its gravity and to enable specific sentencing.
For example 19C (Mandatory Life Sentences for rape and murder).
This would bring the crime of rape and murder in line with 19B (Mandatory Life Sentences for murder of police officers).
The sentencing act also needs to be framed in a similar way to 19B to ensure that as per section (2), (4) and (5), the life sentence is for the term of the person’s natural life, it is mandatory and no other law or act can authorise a court to impose a lesser or alternative sentence.
This also means that ‘mitigating factors’ would not apply to the crime of rape and murder just as they do not apply to the murder of a police officer.
This blog post provides an overview of key arguments presented in my submission in response to the Consultation Paper and my preliminary submission 2 on 8 March 2019 to inform the Consultation Paper.
I believe it is time to bring back life sentencing
where life means life in prison. Rapist
murderers should never get a second chance to rape and murder. Our society
needs a zero-tolerance policy towards rapist murderers and this should be
reflected in sentencing.
Strong sentencing for the crime of rape and murder
will send a strong message in society and help to reduce all violent crimes
against women.
I am advocating for this law reform as the sister of Anne-Marie Culleton who at just 20 years-old was raped and murdered by Jonathan Bakewell who broke into her flat in Darwin in the middle of the night when she was sleeping on 23 February 1988.
Anne-Marie Culleton was raped and murdered in her flat in the middle of the night while she was sleeping
Rape and murder is a gender crime which strikes fear into the hearts of all women in the community.
The brutal rape and murder of my sister while she
was asleep in her flat is every woman’s worst nightmare.
Despite Bakewell being given a life sentence with no
parole in 1989, the laws in the NT were changed to grant parole to life
sentence murderers in 2003 and he was released in 2016 in South Australia where
he had been transferred while in prison to
be near his family.
Since his release Bakewell has breached parole four times for
taking drugs – the same drugs he took the night he raped and murdered my sister – yet the South Australia parole board keeps releasing him.
This was despite a 53 page submission I made to the parole board, members of
the public coming forward with new information, letters to politicians,
questions asked in parliament and a media campaign. These pleas fell on deaf
ears.
Bakewell was released for the fifth time on 18 October 2019. I am horrified about this and am convinced from the new information that I received from members of the public during my media campaign that Bakewell is as dangerous today as the day he raped and murdered my sister.
No woman in Australia is safe from Bakewell. He had breached parole and was on the run from South Australia when he travelled to NSW, QLD and the Northern Territory where he raped and murdered my sister.
My call for life sentencing for the crime of rape and murder
is also driven by the fact that there is no guarantee that prison rehabilitation
works. In fact there is plenty of evidence that sex offender rehabilitation
programs don’t work.
One prime example is rapist murderer Terrence Leary. 17-year-old Vanessa Hoson was asleep in her family home in Sydney in 1990 when Leary broke in, attacked and murdered her. 3
Prior to his parole release after his murder of Ms Hoson, Leary had been deemed a “model prisoner” who had ‘ticked all the boxes’ for his rehabilitation. The then Attorney-General Greg Smith reported “ Mr Leary completed programs to address his drug and alcohol issues and sex offending behaviour prior to his release on parole.” 4
He even
completed a university degree in prison – a Bachelor of Arts studying sociology
and anthropology.
Despite Vanessa Hoson’s family’s protests, Leary
was released on parole and in 2013 tried to rape and stabbed a woman at a bus
stop. The victim is only alive today because the police arrived on the scene in
time to save her. When the police arrived Leary was in a frenzy and attacked
them too.
Yet,
incredulously, Judge Syme, in sentencing Leary for his rape and knife attack on
the woman at the bus stop, still took into account Leary’s rehabilitation programs
in prison before his parole release – when evidently the prison rehabilitation
programs did not work.
This was despite the judge saying Leary was still a danger to the community because no one could be sure he wouldn’t suffer another outburst.
“His unpredictability makes his management in the community a challenge,” 5 Judge Syme said.
“Not all forms of antisocial behaviour can be treated through therapy.”
Yet Justice Helen Syme still did not give the maximum penalty for this second attack – Leary’s sentence was 11 years and three months and he will eligible for parole in 2024.
It is critical to note, if a so called “model prisoner” like
Leary could repeat his crimes once released into the community, this is clear
evidence that sexual offending rehabilitation programs do not work. It is also
evident that psychiatrists and psychologists who also have input to parole
release applications cannot predict human behaviour.
Sex offenders are faking their way through programs
ABC Journalist Jill Meagher’s rapist murderer Adrian Bayley admitted to faking his way through a sex offenders program to get early release. 6
Bayley is a prime example of a repeat violent sex offender who escalated to murder. Bayley had a long history of rapes spanning more than 20 years.
If Bayley admitted faking his way through a sex offenders program to get early release, this begs the question, how many other prisoners have faked their way through sex offenders programs?
Adrian Bayley admitted faking his way through a sex offenders program to get early release. He then went on to rape and murder Jill Meagher ABC News 26 March 2015 Read More >>
Even the experts question the effectiveness of sex offender treatment programs
A report prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology for the Office of the Status of Women, “Recidivism of Sexual Assault Offenders: Rates, Risk Factors and Treatment Efficacy” found the effectiveness of treatment of sex offenders to be questionable:
“While it is assumed that treatment will reduce the risk of sexual recidivism, the evidence is ambiguous. There have been few systematic evaluations of treatment programs and no definitive results regarding treatment efficacy.”7
Sex offender recidivism rates demonstrate that rehabilitation programs do not work
The countless examples of sex offenders repeating their
crime after being released from prison point to the fact that sex offender
rehabilitation programs do not work.
While there has also been little research on Australia sex offender recidivism rates, in the Australian Institute of Criminology report 8 one study of 402 prisoners found 27% were found to have at least one previous conviction for a sexual offence.
The Australian Institute of Criminology report also stated
that sex offender recidivism rates are underestimated due to the lack of
recorded data for this crime. One reason for this is that repeat sexual
offenders may be identified for the principal offence for which they were
convicted, which may not be the sexual offence.
Also, importantly, according to a Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Personal Safety Survey 2016, the majority of women (9 out of 10) who were sexually assaulted did not contact the police (87% or 553,900). 9
When you consider that of those rapes that are reported,
only a small percentage proceed to trial, it makes estimating sex offending
recidivism rates problematic.
What is clear from the existing evidence is that sex
offender rehabilitation programs do not work. Hence why we need to err on the
side of women’s safety. No risk to a woman’s life is an acceptable risk.
The lack of research to track murderers repeat offending
There is a glaring lack of research to track repeat offending of murderers let alone rapist murderers. In a Centre for Criminology article “Counting the risk of murderers re-offending” by Roderic Broadhurst, Professor of Criminology and Ross Maller, Professor of Probability and Statistics at the Australian National University, the authors note that no state correctional authority in Australia has undertaken studies of repeat offending of homicide offenders. 10
So on what basis is the judiciary making sentencing decisions to grant parole to rapist murderers?
Lifelong harm to victim family members
A mandatory life sentence without parole for the crime of
rape and murder will serve to recognise the life lost of the victim and the
lifelong harm inflicted on their loved ones.
As a murder victim family member, who at 19 years old, lost my 20 year old sister Anne-Marie Culleton, when was raped and murdered in her flat in 1988, the harms I have suffered have been lifelong and will continue to be.
To assist the NSW Sentencing Council reviewing my law reform submission, to understand the lifelong impacts of murder on family members, I shared some of the impacts on my life.
I shared how as a 19 year old university student, the rape and murder of my sister impacted me to the extent that I did not just lose my sister, I lost my youth, my future, my dreams, my idealism, my peace, my sense of security and my joy. I felt like the light had gone out of my world.
I was traumatised, devastated and heavily weighed down by
grief and the senselessness of it all. Anne-Marie was a beautiful, talented, 20
year old young woman with a bright future ahead of her. With dreams she never
got to realise.
Anne-Marie’s drivers licence photo. at 19 years old. 9 NEWS 18 October 2019 Watch Now >>
Anne-Marie’s rape and murder in her home at night is every
woman’s worst nightmare and it became mine. I lost my sense of personal
security and safety and suffered from post-traumatic stress. I became anxious if
I was at home alone, even during the day. I suffered nightmares and would often
stay awake until dawn – then I would feel safe enough to sleep for a few hours.
This went on for a number of years.
The trauma of Anne-Marie’s murder also impacted my
relationships. After finishing university I never returned to Darwin to live as
I could not bear the memories, or the societal stigma, and it was hard to even
go home to visit.
To think of the nature of her death causes me great anguish.
This was made worse by seeing the police video re-enactment of Anne-Marie’s
murder broadcast on television. It tortures me to think about the terror and
suffering that my sister endured at her death. I wish I could erase the images
from my mind.
To this day, watching the news and seeing crimes of rape and
murder triggers memories of Anne-Marie’s murder, and my heart goes out to the
victims and their families, thinking of their agony. It is why I am fighting
for law reform.
The impact of judicial decisions on the murder victim family
Over the 32 years since my sister’s rape and murder, I have experienced the impact of the whole spectrum of judicial decisions: of justice being served with the original sentence of life without parole; of justice being ripped away with a law change to enable parole; of the offender’s appeals all the way to the High Court of Australia to get his non-parole period reduced; his release on parole; the offender breaching parole four times; my unsuccessful fight to have his parole revoked and the offender’s latest release for the fifth time on parole in October 2019. Even if Bakewell’s parole is finally revoked, I face a lifetime of fighting, because he can reapply for parole every 12 months.
The impact of parole release on the murder victim family
In my submission I outlined the impact of Bakewell’s parole release.
That I did not initially fight his parole release due to the re-onset of PTSD.
But that after his two parole breaches for taking drugs – the same drugs he
took the night he raped and murdered my sister I felt I had no choice but to
fight.
I outlined my nine month battle in 2019 to have Bakewell’s parole cancelled; a battle which, as stated earlier in this post, was unsuccessful.
I am devastated by the constant stream of murder victim
families like mine who are forced to fight the parole release of their loved
one’s rapist murderer. It should not be up to the murder victim families to
have to fight to keep the community safe. And to suffer the compounded trauma of
being unsuccessful and living in perpetual fear the offender will repeat their
crime. This is a cruel and intolerable burden on victim families.
In my submission I referenced campaigns and petitions to
fight the release of rapist murderers Michael Guider, Neville Towner, Dante
Arthurs and Terrence Leary, but there are many more.
We have a national crisis of violence against women
I am also calling for law reform to protect women. To
prevent more victims of rape
and murder. We have a national crisis of
violence against women.
1 in 5 women in Australia are sexually assaulted. 11
We don’t have statistics for the rape and murder of women because the government doesn’t collect them – because rape and murder is not a specific crime. It needs to be.
One in four women don’t feel safe walking the streets in their local area alone at night 13
One in four women don’t feel safe waiting for public transport after dark 14
One in 10 women don’t feel safe home alone at night 15
The Personal Safety Australia 2016 survey with statistics above was undertaken before the rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon in 2018 and Aiia Maasarwe in 2019 – crimes which shocked and outraged the nation and have made women feel even more unsafe.
As the men and women of Australia have clearly demonstrated through their outrage and nationwide public vigils in response to the rape and murder of Aiia Maasarwe, Eurydice Dixon and Jill Meagher, we havea national crisis.
When women don’t feel safe walking the streets at night, we have a national crisis.
When women don’t feel safe being alone at home at night, we have a national crisis.
Our justice system is broken
When rapist murderers do not receive the available maximum
sentence of life with no parole, our justice system is broken.
When rapist murderers are allowed to appeal the severity of
their sentence, our justice system is broken.
When rapist murderers who received the maximum sentence of
life with no parole, have their sentence redetermined to grant them parole, our
justice system is broken.
There is little chance today for the crime of rape and murder to receive a life sentence without parole
A life sentence for
the term of the offender’s natural life is not a realistic prospect for a rape
and murder case today.
The recent sentencing in Victoria of Codey Herrmann in
October 2019 for the rape and murder of Aiia Maasarwe powerfully exemplifies
this.
The judge, Elizabeth Hollingworth said the crime was not
deemed to “warrant the imposition of the maximum penalties”.
Yet this was, by any community standard, a horrific crime.
It involved a man brutally attacking, raping and murdering a young woman
walking down a public street. It involved the rapist murderer also setting fire
to parts of her body in an attempt to destroy DNA evidence.
This rape and murder of Aiia Maasarwe sparked an outpouring
of public outrage, not just in Melbourne, but in vigils across the country
including in NSW.
Even the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison described the murder as “sickening”.
“This was a disgusting crime. It is sickening this sort of violence against a woman was committed in Australia,” he said on Twitter. 16
Yet the judge did not deem it to “warrant the imposition of maximum penalties”.
The fact that Justice Hollingsworth made this judgement clearly demonstrates how broken our justice system is, and the depths of injustice to which our justice system has plummeted in relation to the crime of rape and murder.
Sentences for rape and murder are becoming progressively weaker due to current sentencing practices
Despite community outrage and Australia wide vigils in
response to the recent rape and murders of Aiia Maasarwe and Eurydice Dixon,
and the call for life sentencing, the prosecution did not call for a life
sentence with no chance for a non-parole period.
Nor did the judges apply that sentence despite having the
power to do so.
I believe this is due to the fact that the hands of the
judges are tied by the practices of precedent and comparing sentences. So even
if a judge did apply the maximum sentence of life without a chance of parole,
it would be swiftly undone by the subsequent criminal appeal that would find
that the judge ‘’erred’’ in relation to practices of precedent, comparing
sentences etc.
For instance Jaymes Todd did not even get the maximum sentence of life without parole 17for his rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon – he will be 55 when he is eligible for parole – yet he is appealing. His appeal was announced during the sentencing trial for Corey Hermann’s rape and murder of Aiia Maasarwe by the defence lawyer Tim Marsh who is acting for the offenders in both cases.18
Crimes of rape and murder are ranked according to a hierarchy of depravity
The current sentencing practice of comparing cases of rape
and murder is perpetuating a spiralling degradation of justice as judges and
lawyers rank the rape and murder of women according to a macabre hierarchy of
depravity.
The crime of rape and murder is an inherently extreme,
horrific, abhorrent, violating crime against women. It is a crime which should
not be macabrely dissected and ranked.
Yet this is exactly what is going on in our courts today. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Hollingworth compared Aiia Maasarwe’s rape and murder with the recent rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon because that is ‘current sentencing practice’. This involved the judge comparing key ‘aggravating’ and ‘mitigating’ circumstances of each rape and murder. For example the judge said:
“On the one hand, Mr Todd killed his victim with his bare hands, rather than a weapon. He also did not commit any aggravating act, such as setting fire to the body.”
“On the other hand, unlike in this case, Mr Todd’s offending involved substantial premeditation. He had had a long-standing sexual fantasy to rape and strangle to death a woman, for more than a year.”
It was due to this ‘ranking’ process that the judge found, in relation to the rape and murder of Aiia Maasarwe, “the case does not warrant the imposition of the maximum penalties.”19
If Aiia Maasarwe’s rape and murder did not warrant the maximum life sentence, what will? This judicial practice of precedent and comparing current sentencing practices has resulted in a broken justice system in relation to sentencing for crimes of rape and murder.
This is why we need mandatory life sentencing for the crime of rape and murder. And this is why the crime of rape and murder needs to be a specific offence.
The crime of rape and murder needs to be a specific offence
Rape and murder is a crime of the highest objective
seriousness in the eyes of the community and this is why it needs to be a
specific offence to reflect its gravity and to enable specific sentencing.
Currently rapist murderers are sentenced for the murder and
rape separately. This is the wrong way to characterise the crime and results in
the rape and murder being macabrely dissected and ranked according to a
hierarchy of objective seriousness.
As discussed above, I believe this practice is perpetuating
a spiralling degradation of justice as judges and lawyers rank the rape and
murder of women according to a macabre hierarchy of depravity.
This results in the crime as a whole being minimised and
sends the wrong message to the community.
I believe that crimes that involve both rape and murder
needs to be treated as a stand alone crime carrying a mandatory life sentence
without parole to reflect the gravity of the offence.
The mandatory life sentence without parole for the crime of rape and murder would reflect the totality principle which requires that the overall sentence is a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved, while ensuring that it meets the different objectives of sentencing.
Sentencing purposes of a mandatory life sentence without parole for the crime of rape and murder
The proposed mandatory life sentence without parole for the crime of rape and murder meets the purposes of sentencing under NSW law 20 in the following ways:
ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence
prevent crime by preventing the offender and other persons from committing similar offences
protect the community from the offender
condemn (denounce) the conduct of the offender
make the offender responsible (accountable) for his or her actions
recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community
A life sentence will enable true justice to be done.
A life sentence willprevent
rapist murderersfromeverbeing
released to recommit their crimes – so preventing more victims.
A life sentence willact
as apowerful deterrentto
men considering raping and murdering a woman – because
they will be locked away for life.
A life sentence will send a message of zero
tolerance to the rape and murder of women.
A life sentence willsaywe
value the lives of women.
Mandatory life
sentencing without parole for rapist murderers will also ensure certainty,
equality and consistency of sentencing, which are key pillars for ensuring
public confidence in the justice system.
Law reform for mandatory life sentencing without
parole for rapist murderers will deliver true justice, act as a powerful
deterrent against violence against women and help to keep women safe.
Call to action for law reform
While my platform is the crime of rape and murder of women, in my submission to the NSW Review of Sentencing for Murder and Manslaughter, I called for law reform for sentencing for three murder crimes:
I called for the crime of rape and murder to receive a mandatory life sentence with no parole.
I believe strong sentencing for
the crime of rape and murder will send a strong message in society and help to
reduce all violent crimes against women. My reasons are outlined in this blog
post and in detail in my submission.
I
called for the crime of rape and murder of a child to receive a mandatory life
sentence with no parole
I believe this sentence will reflect
the gravity of the offence and society’s condemnation of this crime and help to
reduce violent crimes against children.
I
called for domestic violence related murder to receive a life sentence with no
parole.
The key reason for this is the
national crisis we have with domestic violence murders. One woman a week is
murdered in this country in domestic violence situations. Millions of dollars
is being spent nationally on programs to address this issue, yet weak
sentencing is undermining the message.
I believe strong sentencing will
reinforce society’s condemnation of this crime and act as a powerful deterrent
for violence against women.
I commend the NSW government for their national leadership
in calling for this NSW Review of Sentencing for Murder and Manslaughter and
truly hope the NSW Sentencing Council and the government will be strong and set
a precedent Australia wide in addressing the crime of rape and murder which is
a scourge on our society and ongoing risk to women’s safety and sense of safety.
Together we can call for mandatory life sentencing without parole for the crime of rape and murder. Together, we can make our community a safer place for women.
It is time to call for law reform for mandatory life sentencing without parole for rapist murderers.
It is fitting that on International Women’s Day I break my 31 year silence to speak up about my sister Anne-Marie Culleton’s rape and murder in order to speak up for justice for rape and murder victims and their families.
My name is Eileen Culleton. I am a resident of NSW, Australia and the sister of murder victim Anne-Marie Culleton. Anne-Marie was raped and murdered on 23 February 1988 when Jonathan Peter Bakewell, 26, broke into her flat in the middle of the night when she was sleeping. Anne-Marie was only 20.
Today I made a submission to the NSW Review of Sentencing for Murder and Manslaughter.
I called for the crime of rape and murder to receive a mandatory life sentence with no parole.
It is my position that society needs a zero-tolerance policy toward rapist murderers and this should be reflected in sentencing. They should never get a second chance to rape and murder another person again.
I also called for rape and murder to be a stand alone crime to reflect its gravity and to enable specific mandatory sentencing.
It is my belief that strong sentencing for the crime of rape and murder will send a strong message in society and help to reduce all violent crimes against women.
A mandatory life sentence with no parole for the crime of rape and murder meets the sentencing purposes of just punishment, crime prevention, community protection, community condemnation, making the offender accountable and recognising the harm done to the victim and their loved ones as well as the community.
Mandatory life sentencing without parole for rapist murderers also ensures certainty, equality and consistency of sentencing for the offenders, the victim families and the community.
Rape and murder is a gender crime which strikes fear into the hearts of all women in the community.
The brutal rape and murder of my sister Anne-Marie while she was asleep in her flat is every woman’s worst nightmare.
The rape and murder occurred in the Northern Territory by Jonathan Peter Bakewell who was on the run from South Australia after breaching his parole.
Despite being given a life sentence with no parole, the laws were changed and Bakewell was released in 2016 and is now living in South Australia. However, given that he has crossed borders to kill before, means that women in NSW or anywhere in the country are not safe from this dangerous offender.
Since his release two years ago Bakewell has breached his parole twice for drug taking and I am living in perpetual fear that he may rape and murder again.
Keeping our community safe is the role of our government and police, supported by the rule of law.
This is another important reason why we need mandatory life sentencing without parole for rapist murderers. Today there are victim families in NSW and across Australia living with the ongoing fight against the parole release of rapist murderers. This living nightmare for victim families has got to stop.
My proposed mandatory life sentencing without parole for rapist murderers will be vital for women’s safety and for justice and ending the parole battle nightmare for victim families.
I commend the NSW government for their national leadership in calling for this murder and manslaughter sentencing review and hope the government will be strong and set a precedent Australia wide in addressing the crime of rape and murder which is a scourge on our society and ongoing risk to women’s safety.
I encourage you to also make your own submission in the next phase when a consultation paper will be produced dealing with the issues identified by the terms of reference and preliminary submissions.
Together we can drive law reform for mandatory life sentencing without parole for rapist murderers.
Together we can make our community a safer place for women.