South Australia’s Proposed Ban on Good Character Evidence: What Would Change?

The South Australian Government is proposing to abolish good character as a mitigating factor in criminal sentencing. The proposed changes would apply across all offences, extending well beyond the child sexual offence cases that helped prompt the reform.

However, describing the proposal as a blanket ban on character references does not tell the whole story. Under the draft Sentencing (Good Character) Amendment Bill 2026, evidence relevant to rehabilitation, the risk of reoffending and other legitimate sentencing considerations could still be considered.

For anyone facing sentencing, the distinction matters: the purpose and substance of the evidence would become critical.

What is the current position?

Section 11 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) currently requires courts to consider a defendant’s character, general background and offending history where relevant. Character references can help provide that information.

There is already a restriction for certain child sexual offences. A court must disregard good character or a lack of previous convictions where it assisted the defendant in committing the offence. This may arise where a trusted reputation helped an offender gain access to a victim.

What would the proposed law do?

The draft Bill would prevent courts from considering information or evidence presented solely to establish a defendant’s good character. It would also expressly abolish the common law principle allowing good character to reduce a sentence.

The existing reference to “character” and “general background” in section 11 would be replaced with “circumstances and characteristics”, with offending history retained as a separate consideration.

Similar changes would remove references to character from sections 24 and 25, which deal with imposing a fine or community service without recording a conviction, and with reducing a penalty below the minimum or substituting a different penalty.

The proposal therefore goes beyond letters of support. It would also affect oral evidence and sentencing arguments relying on good character as an independent basis for leniency.

Why is the Government proposing the change?

The reform follows advocacy by the Your Reference Ain’t Relevant campaign, co-founded by survivor advocates Harrison James and Jarad Grice.

A central concern is the distress victims can experience when the person who harmed them is described in court as a good or respected person. Supporters argue that a favourable public reputation should not lessen accountability for criminal conduct, particularly where that reputation concealed or facilitated abuse.

The proposal also follows the NSW Sentencing Council’s report, Good character at sentencing, dated July 2025 and released in February 2026. A majority of the Council recommended abolishing good character as a mitigating factor for all offences, while preserving evidence relevant to other sentencing considerations.

The recommendation was not unanimous. Dissenting views raised concerns about individualised sentencing and the difficulty of separating character evidence from evidence relevant to rehabilitation and reoffending risk.

Would references from employers, family or friends become useless?

Not necessarily.

The draft expressly preserves the court’s ability to consider evidence presented for another sentencing purpose. A letter’s usefulness would therefore depend on what it establishes, rather than simply who wrote it or whether it is labelled a “character reference”.

For example, a general statement that someone is well liked or respected would fall within the proposed restriction if its sole purpose were to establish good character.

By contrast, specific evidence about available employment, practical support for treatment or steps taken towards rehabilitation may remain relevant. An employer’s evidence of an ongoing job opportunity could, depending on the circumstances, assist the court in assessing rehabilitation prospects.

Simply relabelling a character reference would not resolve the issue. The evidence would need a genuine connection to a permissible sentencing consideration.

Would a clean criminal record still matter?

Yes. The draft retains offending history as a sentencing factor. It does not generally abolish consideration of a lack of previous convictions.

However, the existing restriction would remain where a lack of previous convictions assisted the commission of a specified child sexual offence.

The proposal also preserves the distinction between reputation and evidence addressing matters such as remorse, rehabilitation and the likelihood of reoffending.

When would the changes apply?

As drafted, the legislation would commence on a date fixed by proclamation. It would apply where an offender was found guilty after commencement.

That makes the timing of the finding of guilt important. The draft does not make the date of the offence or the sentencing hearing the deciding event. Its wording could therefore capture offences committed before commencement where the finding of guilt occurs afterwards.

What should someone facing sentencing do?

Sentencing preparation would remain important under the proposed changes. The emphasis would shift away from general praise and towards specific, relevant evidence about the person’s circumstances and the steps they have taken since offending.

Anyone facing sentencing should obtain advice before requesting references or other supporting material. Carefully prepared evidence can help the court assess the matters it is legally entitled to consider.

This article discusses the October 2026 consultation draft. The final legislation and commencement arrangements may change.