New Queensland Law Limits Use of Character References for Sex Offenders
Queensland has changed the law on using good character references in sex offence cases. Here’s what it means for offenders, survivors, and the justice system.
Introduction: Why This Law Change Matters
In September 2025, Queensland introduced a significant legal reform that changes how courts can consider “good character” when sentencing people convicted of sexual offences.
Previously, offenders could present references from employers, family members, or community leaders to argue that they were of good character, even after being found guilty of serious crimes. These references sometimes carried considerable weight in sentencing.
Now, under new laws passed by the Queensland Parliament, offenders can no longer rely on character references if the offence was sexual in nature and involved an abuse of trust.
This change has been widely reported in the media, explained in official government statements, and debated within the legal profession and community. Victim-survivor advocates strongly supported the reform, while some legal bodies raised concerns about fairness and consistency.
This blog unpacks the reform in plain English: what it says, why it was introduced, the concerns raised, the government’s response, and what it means in practice.
What Does the New Law Say?
The law amends Queensland’s sentencing framework to restrict the weight that can be placed on character references in sexual offence cases.
Key point: A person convicted of a sexual offence cannot rely on their “good character” or lack of prior offences to reduce their sentence where the offence involved an abuse of trust.
This applies to offences such as sexual assault, rape, and offences involving children, especially where the offender was in a position of authority or trust (for example, a teacher, coach, employer, or carer).
The court must focus primarily on the seriousness of the offence, harm to the victim, and protection of the community.
The change effectively means that being a respected community member or having no prior convictions will not be used to lessen a penalty in these types of cases.
Why Was the Law Introduced?
According to the Queensland Government’s official statement , the reform was introduced in response to concerns that survivors of sexual offences often felt character references undermined their experience and made the justice system seem unfair.
Many survivors reported that hearing judges read out glowing references about their abuser — often from people unaware of the details of the crime — was retraumatising.
The government also noted public campaigns, including the #YourReferenceAintRelevant initiative , which argued that character references had no place in sentencing for sexual crimes.
In short, the reform aims to:
Improve fairness for survivors.
Reduce retraumatisation in court.
Ensure sentencing reflects the seriousness of sexual offences, not the personal standing of the offender.
How Character References Worked Before
To understand the significance of the change, it helps to look at how character references used to operate.
Case Study Example (Before):
A 45-year-old school principal was convicted of sexually assaulting a student.
During sentencing, the defence presented 12 character references from colleagues, parents, and community members describing the offender as a respected educator with a long history of service.
The judge took these references into account, noting the offender’s “otherwise good character,” and imposed a lighter sentence than would otherwise have been applied.
For many survivors, this process felt like the offender’s community standing outweighed the harm caused.
Case Study Example (Now, After the Reform):
In the same scenario today, the offender would not be able to rely on their reputation as a respected principal.
The court would focus on the breach of trust, the seriousness of the offence, and the impact on the student.
Character references would not reduce the penalty.
This shift reflects a growing recognition that sexual offences are fundamentally about abuse of power and betrayal of trust, not isolated lapses by “otherwise good people.”
Concerns Raised by the Legal Profession
While survivor advocates welcomed the law, the Queensland Law Society (QLS) raised several concerns in its submission to Parliament :
Erosion of Judicial Discretion
Courts traditionally consider a wide range of factors when sentencing.
Removing the ability to consider good character narrows judicial discretion and may undermine the principle of individualised justice.
Unintended Consequences
There is a risk that other areas of law may face pressure to exclude mitigating factors, leading to inconsistencies.
Fairness to Defendants
Good character evidence can sometimes explain why an offence was out of character or unlikely to be repeated.
Excluding it entirely may result in harsher sentences that do not reflect the offender’s overall circumstances.
Slippery Slope
If character references are excluded in sexual offence cases, will other categories of crime follow? For example, fraud committed by trusted professionals?
The Society urged caution, arguing that while reforms must support survivors, they should not erode fundamental sentencing principles.
The Government’s Response
The Department of Justice and Attorney-General responded directly to these criticisms . Their key points were:
Survivor Harm Outweighs Character Evidence
The potential retraumatisation of survivors is a serious justice concern.
The emotional harm caused by hearing references that diminish their experience justifies limiting their use.
Judicial Discretion Remains Broad
Judges can still consider many other factors, including:
The offender’s age and health
Rehabilitation prospects
Remorse and guilty pleas
Only the use of “good character” as a mitigating factor in sexual offences is restricted.
Narrow and Targeted Reform
The change applies only to sexual offences involving abuse of trust.
It does not set a precedent for excluding character references in all cases.
In short, the government maintained that the reform strikes the right balance between fairness and survivor protection.
Survivor Advocacy and Community Campaigns
One of the strongest drivers of this reform was survivor advocacy.
The #YourReferenceAintRelevant campaign was launched by survivors who had experienced retraumatisation in court when offenders produced glowing references.
They argued:
References are often written by people unaware of the full details of the crime.
They can minimise the seriousness of offences and shift sympathy towards the offender.
They create an impression that community status excuses or reduces responsibility for abuse.
This campaign gathered significant public and political support, reinforcing the need for legislative change.
Practical Impacts of the Law
So, what will this actually mean in practice?
Sentencing Hearings Will Change
Judges will no longer read out character references in sexual offence cases.
Hearings may be shorter and less retraumatising for survivors.
Offenders Cannot Rely on Reputation
Being a respected teacher, priest, or community leader will not help reduce sentencing.
In fact, breach of trust may increase the penalty.
Focus Shifts to Rehabilitation Evidence
Defence lawyers may instead emphasise rehabilitation, psychological treatment, or genuine remorse.
Consistency in Sentencing
Survivors across Queensland can expect more consistent treatment in sexual offence cases.
Criticisms from Defence Lawyers
Some defence lawyers argue that the reform may lead to unintended injustices. For example:
An offender with no prior history, who made a one-time mistake, may now face the same penalty as a repeat offender.
Rehabilitation prospects may not be fully recognised if character evidence is excluded.
However, the government emphasises that rehabilitation and other mitigating factors remain available — it is only “good character” in the narrow sense that is excluded.
What This Means for Queenslanders
For the community, the reform signals a strong stance: sexual offences, particularly where trust is abused, will be treated with the utmost seriousness.
For survivors, it may reduce retraumatisation and increase confidence in the justice system.
For offenders and their families, it narrows the tools available in sentencing but does not remove the right to present other mitigating evidence.
Resources and Further Reading
How OYB Can Help
At On Your Behalf, we understand that changes in sentencing law can raise complex questions for defendants, survivors, and the community.
If you are facing charges, you need legal advice on what evidence can and cannot be presented in court.
If you are a survivor of sexual violence, you deserve clear information on how the justice system protects your rights.
If you are a community member seeking to understand the reforms, our team can provide guidance in plain language.
Contact us today to arrange a confidential consultation with our experienced criminal and family law team.
Conclusion
Queensland’s new law limiting the use of good character references in sexual offence sentencing reflects growing recognition that survivor protection and fairness in the justice system must take priority over community reputation.
While the legal profession has raised valid concerns about judicial discretion, the government has maintained the reform is narrowly targeted and necessary to restore trust in the system.
This change marks a turning point in how Queensland courts balance offender circumstances with survivor harm — and it will reshape sentencing in years to come.
This OYBlog was created with AI assistance using the following sources -