Preventing courts from considering an offender's character in sentencing will not provide better outcomes for marginalised groups, top lawyers say.
After the NSW government announced it would scrap "good character" as a mitigating factor in criminal sentencing, the state's barristers have said the move would weaken justice.
The laws introduced to parliament on Wednesday are designed to stop the trauma faced by victim survivors when hearing the individual who offended against them described as a good person.
But the NSW Bar Association has struck out against the changes, saying courts must reserve the right to assess all available evidence before making a decision.
"The proposed reforms would unreasonably limit the ability of the sentencing court to understand the offender as a whole person," association president Dominic Toomey SC said.
"Whether the offence is an aberration for a person who has otherwise made positive contributions to the community is, and should remain, an important consideration."
The changes were championed for years by victim-survivor advocates, including child sexual abuse survivor and co-founder of Your Reference Ain't Relevant Harrison James.
"This reform shifts courts from privileging offenders' social standing to centering the lived experience and trauma of survivors," Mr James told AAP.
Recommendations made by the Sentencing Council of NSW stated the use of "good character" contributed to social disadvantage.
Wealthy and influential criminals had much greater access to positive character references, their report argued, while those with intellectual disabilities were often frozen out.
Mr Toomey refuted that position, saying the real barrier to equal justice was the lack of funding for services such as Legal Aid and the Aboriginal Legal Service.
"Evidence of otherwise good character is used in sentencing proceedings by offenders from a wide range of backgrounds, including people experiencing disadvantage," Mr Toomey said.
Bar Association members Felicity Graham and Richard Wilson SC were the only dissenting voices among the 21 voices in the Sentencing Council report.
They argued recognising good character, as the law has done for decades, could encourage rehabilitation in offenders.
