The Victorian Court of Appeal has confirmed that sentences for offences that are considered inadequate – including incest, glassing offences, aggravated burglary and certain driving offences – can increase immediately.

Historically, the Court of Appeal has directed that courts increase inadequate sentences incrementally, but a High Court decision changed that, and a more recent Court of Appeal decision affirmed it.

The High Court ruled that Victorian courts had given too much weight to current sentencing practices, even when they were insufficient.

Courts must still take these practices into account, but are no longer bound by these where sentences are clearly inadequate.

Centre for Non-Violence chief executive Margaret Augerinos said it was “very validating” for a victim when the offender received a sentence that reflected the gravity of the crime.

“It is really important, giving a message that people will be held to account for their behaviour,” Ms Augerinos said.

“Through that process, victims can feel heard.”

She believes the change will be viewed positively by the community, in which there is a perception that the courts “go easy” on offenders.

Bendigo lawyer Luke Docherty also believed it would be welcomed by the community, but said the change carried the possibility that fewer people would plead guilty to offences, as they would no longer have the expectation of receiving similar sentences as others had in the past.

The more cases that went to trial, Mr Docherty said, the more delays.

But he said sentences had been trending upwards.

Mr Docherty said he also held concerns that courts did not have enough options to deal with offences.

While it was not to say serious offenders should not go to jail, he said, courts should have more tools at their disposal for sentencing offenders.

The Court of Appeal had preferred the incremental approach to increasing sentences because the Sentencing Act required courts to take current practices into account; the concern that it would seem unfair if two people in similar cases received significantly different sentences; and offenders might not have pleaded guilty if they knew the sentence would be higher than expected.