Adjourned undertakings – also known as good behaviour orders, or bonds – are the second most common sentence type (after fines) imposed in Victoria, but they have not been reviewed since they were first introduced in 1985, almost 40 years ago. In this report, the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council has made 26 recommendations for their improvement.

Adjourned undertakings are a flexible community order that require offenders to be of good behaviour for a specified period (usually 12 months), and may also include additional conditions such as participating in rehabilitation programs or making charitable donations. In 2019 alone, over 17,000 adjourned undertakings were imposed in Victoria, accounting for 18% of all sentencing outcomes in Victorian adult courts.

The recommendations put forward in the report are the result of extensive data analysis, legal research, and two years of consultation with various stakeholders. Their overarching objective is to further enhance a sentencing order that is already highly regarded by those working within Victoria’s criminal justice system, better ensuring its effectiveness while avoiding any unintended consequences.

Key recommendations:

• Renaming adjourned undertakings: To improve community understanding about the nature of these orders, the Council has recommended they be renamed as ‘good behaviour orders’.
• Defining ‘good behaviour’: There is currently no definition of what it means to be of ‘good behaviour’ during an adjourned undertaking. The Council has recommended more clearly defining this as simply not committing further offences.
• Payment conditions: Almost half of all adjourned undertakings have no special conditions attached to them (47%). When courts do attach special conditions, the most common is for the person to make a charitable donation, either directly to a specific charity or via what is known as the Court Fund (from which the Magistrates’ Court distributes money to charitable organisations). Together, there was almost $3 million in charitable donation conditions in 2019. The Council has made a number of recommendations relating to payment conditions of adjourned undertakings, including making sure that payments do not unfairly affect offenders with lower incomes.
• Form reform: Many stakeholders observed that the form given to offenders who receive an adjourned undertaking is unnecessarily complex and difficult to understand. The Council has recommended that the Magistrates’ Court redesign the form so that it can be more easily understood by those who have to comply with the adjourned undertaking.
• Decriminalising breaches: There is currently a distinct offence of breaching an adjourned undertaking, with a maximum penalty of a fine. The Council found the breach offence is rarely and inconsistently prosecuted, can have a significant effect on court resources, and does not add to the powers a court can exercise in response to breach behaviours.