Reforms proposed by victim advocates and backed by the NSW government aim to shield victims from "re-traumatisation" when presented with evidence of a perpetrator's good character.
The Australian-first laws, halfway through NSW parliament, also target the "privilege discount" Labor claims cushions well-connected criminals against harsher sentences by letting influential pals spruik their virtues.
But good character references often helped disadvantaged perpetrators, NSW Bar Association president Dominic Toomey SC said on Tuesday.
"Every day in courts across the state, offenders from disadvantaged backgrounds rely on evidence of good character," he told a parliamentary inquiry into the references ban.
Dismissing character evidence means courts cannot sufficiently consider underprivileged perpetrators' circumstances, public defender Alexander Terracini said.
He posited a scenario under the bill where a domestic violence victim with a clean criminal record "snapped" and committed a crime against her partner.
The judge would be blind to her context of abuse and prior good character, he argued.
Attorney-General Michael Daley said that was a mischaracterisation of the bill, which did not affect the ability of an accused person to call evidence at trial to defend themselves.
"It does not change or prevent the admission of this evidence and has nothing to do with provocation or duress," he told reporters.
Mr Daley has championed the legal change, which would mark a major shift in the criminal justice system 200 years after references were introduced.
The campaign against references, gathering steam nationwide, has been spearheaded by advocacy group Your Reference Ain't Relevant.
It said judges could still consider prior criminal record, rehabilitation prospects, mental health, hardship and other factors under the proposed NSW law.
But lawyers responding to concerns over the "privilege discount" said judges were not interested in the powerful positions an author of character references might hold.
"Sentencing is more nuanced than just coming up with a few references from well-connected people saying 'oh look, this is a person of good character'," NSW Law Society spokeswoman Jane Sanders said.
She also feared busy local court judges might mistakenly dismiss other relevant evidence, which appears similar to character references due to misunderstanding of the extent of the reforms.
This apprehension over courts conflating relevant and irrelevant evidence was echoed by the Aboriginal Legal Service, which opposes the bill in its current form.
Most states and territories have carve-outs preventing many child sex offenders from relying on "good character" to lessen sentences.
In its submission, the Feminist Legal Clinic proposed expanding that ban to violent and serious offences, such as sexual assault.
"Anything which supports the idea that a man may still be a good or decent person, despite a sexual offence conviction, flies in the face of logic," it said.
28°C