The empirical research shows a relationship between length of order and completion rates in some studies, although this correlation is generally interpreted as resulting from the greater opportunity for breach to occur with longer time being served on orders. No relevant critical success factors and good practice standards were identified. One review of electronic monitoring specifically noted that there was no evidence to support perceptions held among some practitioners that the maximum effective length of electronic monitoring orders was 4 months.
Comparison:
Jurisdictions vary in whether there is an explicit maximum length of order that can be made.
Maximum length of orders
|
front-end |
back-end |
|
|
NSW |
18 months |
not applicable |
|
Vic |
12 months |
not explicitly stated but criteria require prisoner to be eligible for release/parole in 6 months or less |
|
Qld |
not applicable |
no maximum length specified (although maximum of 4 months generally applied in practice) |
|
SA |
not specified |
not explicitly stated but eligibility criteria specify home detention release no earlier than one year prior to release/parole |
|
ACT |
18 months |
not applicable |
|
NT |
12 months |
not applicable |
|
NZ 1 |
not specified |
not specified |
1 NZ: offenders sentenced to two years or less must be released from imprisonment at half the sentence served, and so would serve a maximum of 12 months; for offenders sentenced to more than two years, the Board decides the length of the Home Detention order, and while there are no formal restriction on order length, in practice orders are generally under 12 months duration.