Stephen Lawrence said yesterday it was “simply not true” that courts in the region were lenient.

Speaking as an Orana Regional Law Society spokesman and principal legal officer of the Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT in the western region, Mr Lawrence cited a number of factors that contributed to the perception of leniency.

He said sometimes it was because of incomplete reporting of criminal cases, sometimes it was because of ignorance of the process and at other times it was politicians.

“Another factor can be political leaders who think they can score cheap points from making these claims,” he said.

“People who are really concerned about these issues should do their own research and be sceptical of broad claims such as these.

“The public need to be made aware that the courts are expected to impose sentences in accordance with the laws determined by the Parliament and they must be allowed to do this independently of political interference.”

The law society member said in recent years sentencing laws had become much more complex.

The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act set out the kinds of sentences a court could impose and the different factors that courts must take into account as aggravating and mitigating a sentence, Mr Lawrence said.

Parliament specified maximum sentences for particular crimes and sometimes standard non-parole periods for those crimes, he said.

“On top of all that superior courts, usually the High Court of Australia and the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal set out further principles which lower courts are required to follow,” he said.

Mr Lawrence cited NSW Bureau of Crime Statistic figures about the process of appealing a local court decision, which takes place in a higher court.

In 2013 Dubbo Local Court finalised 985 matters, with offenders appealing the severity of the sentence imposed in 220 of those cases, and the prosecution lodging appeals in only three cases, he said.

Of the 220 severity appeals, the sentence imposed by the magistrate was reduced in 131 cases and 89 were dismissed, he said.

The three appeals from the prosecution were upheld and more severe sentences imposed, he said.

“These statistics show that there is a process in place when the police and prosecution are concerned about leniency,” Mr Lawrence said.

“Nothing in these statistics suggests a leniency issue.”

In July Dubbo MP Troy Grant welcomed a decision by the chief magistrate to base three magistrates at Dubbo, ending arrangements relying on Sydney-based magistrates flying in and out to service five western NSW local courts.

Mr Grant said then that fly-in, fly-out magistrates could hand down sentences that “often” did not “hit the mark” and reported some offenders moved from one western court to another, “looking for the best deal from the new fly-in, fly-out magistrate”.

Mr Lawrence yesterday rejected claims people accused of crimes got their cases adjourned to locations where there were more lenient judicial officers who flew in from Sydney on a part-time basis.

“That is just ignorant nonsense,” he said.

“I have seen nothing, not one single case, that suggests this is occurring or indeed that there would be any reason for it to occur.

“It also ignores the fact that sentencing law is a statewide law.

“People simply cannot expect as a matter of course tougher sentencing in the bush than in Sydney, this violates equality before the law and would discriminate against country people.”

The Daily Liberal sought and received a response from Mr Grant yesterday.

“Parliament sets the punishment, courts apply them,” Mr Grant.

“It’s the inconsistent levels of punishment and the perception that the punishment isn’t fitting the crime is where the community angst lies.”

Mr Lawrence urged citizens concerned about the issue to use their right to witness criminal proceedings at the local or district courts in Brisbane Street.

“They will see justice being dispensed in a calm and polite manner,” he said.

“This should not be confused with leniency.

“One doesn’t have to yell at an offender to punish them.

“Nor does one have to ignore their rehabilitation needs.

“Citizens can look at the punishment outcomes and draw their own conclusions.”