The Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council has engaged Griffith University to perform reviews of the available literature related to sentencing practices in sexual assault and rape (or equivalent) offences. Toward this objective, this Final Report includes the following chapters. In Chapter 1: Background, a background to the project is provided. We briefly outline how the work of the Council supports and extends the work previously undertaken by the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce. This chapter further describes the impetus to produce this Report with the aim of highlighting best practices in sentencing sexual violence offences. Ideally, such approaches to the allocation of punishment should achieve the objective of public safety while also appropriately considering victims’ justice needs and community perspectives in the embodiment of varying penological principles. In Chapter 2: Introduction, we provide readers with an introduction to the offences of sexual assault and rape. Included in this chapter is coverage of the available victim and perpetrator statistics related to these crimes. We communicate a brief review of the dominant criminological theories that account for offending aetiology and desistance, helping to provide a backdrop against which readers can better understand the research that addresses the (in)effectiveness of and (dis)satisfaction with sentencing approaches described later in the Report. In Chapter 3: Rapid Evidence Assessment Methodology, we detail the methodology employed in our two rapid evidence assessments (REAs). Such reviews are a form of research summary that employ a transparent, structured, and systematic process to identify, screen, categorise, and synthesise research related to a particular topic. Our search strategy for both reviews included 8 academic databases, 6 legal databases, and 29 research repositories/websites. In total, 58 experts across 8 domains were identified with their Google Scholar profiles searched. Forward citation searches and reference harvesting was employed where appropriate. Search terms were developed in consultation with content area experts and the Council. As summarised in our PRISMA flow chart, 26,241 records were uploaded, 15,817 titles were screened, and 417 documents were screened, resulting in 177 studies from 180 documents. Within this chapter we further unpack the overarching results of our reviews. We provide an overview of the study characteristics that resulted from our methods described in the preceding chapter. Specifically, we describe that the research that populates our two REAs is drawn from nine countries, most frequently from the United States. The bulk of the included research is from journal articles, with most outputs being published within the past decade. For REA 1, 84% of the included research draws on administrative data, while for REA 2, 78% of the included studies present survey data. In Chapter 4: Evaluations of Sentencing Practices, the studies in our first rapid evidence assessment are described and synthesised. Here, we draw together the available research that explores the evidence of effectiveness of various sentencing approaches in cases of sexual assault and rape offences. In most instances, that includes a review of how specific penalties impact recidivism outcomes. For this REA, we identified 50 studies from 53 documents that met the inclusion criteria. We first describe the research evaluating traditional sentencing approaches (n = 8), namely imprisonment (n = 2) and community supervision (n = 6). We then review the studies that evaluate various sentencing supplements and alternative sanctions (n = 42), including electronic monitoring (n = 2), registration and community notification (n = 22), residency restrictions (n = 5), compulsory treatment (n = 9), polygraphy (n = 3), and restorative justice (n = 1). Collectively, the quantity and quality of available evaluation evidence relating to sentencing effectiveness are limited. For our second REA, our search and screening procedures identified 127 unique studies. We report on these across two chapters (noting that five studies appear in both results chapters). In Chapter 5: Victim Perceptions of Sentencing we describe the studies that investigate the attitudes of survivors of sexual violence toward matters of sentencing. We identified 22 studies relevant to victim perceptions, unpacking their satisfaction with sentencing, perceived appropriateness of sentencing options, and alternative approaches to justice. This research largely shows that victims want different things from sentencing than what may be expected, often looking for their voice to be heard rather than for offenders to be punished harshly. As individuals may have different justice needs, in line with other research, we conclude that victims may be best served by enabling them to choose from a suite of options regarding sentencing. In Chapter 6: Community Perceptions of Sentencing, we communicate our review of the 111 studies specific to community perspectives, generally investigating punitiveness, leniency, and appropriateness. The chapter includes reviews of research from Australia (n = 17), Canada (n = 4), the United Kingdom (n = 12), and the United States (n = 67), in addition to research from other countries (n = 5) or cross-national in scope (n = 6). Research generally finds that the public is punitive when asked about sentencing abstractly but become less so (sometimes even less than the judiciary) when asked about specific real-world cases. In relation to specific sanctions, although some segments of the community express a preference for custodial penalties for certain offences, much of the research we reviewed reveals that the public is generally open about sentencing options. In Chapter 7: Discussion, we draw the information presented throughout the Report together, stipulating a proposed policy agenda that emerges from our reviews of the available evidence. Specifically, we suggest that (1) more rigorous research is required, (2) applied research should be pursued, preferably within researcher-practitioner partnerships, (3) justice system decisionmaking should not be fuelled by penal populism, (4) practitioners and policymakers must distinguish between process and outcome under an umbrella of procedural justice, (5) justice innovations must be carefully considered (and ideally evaluated) before widescale implementation, (6) practitioners, policymakers, and the public more broadly must distinguish between penalties (such as prison) as punishment versus penalties for punishment, (7) treatment should be evidence-based, (8) desistance can and should be facilitated, (9) penalties may prove complementary, helping to meet diverse needs of stakeholders, and (10) sentencing should ideally fulfil several functions. The policy agenda we forward for sentencing sexual violence is a direct response to the evident gaps in the available research findings. These recommendations, taken together, provide a comprehensive strategy for enhancing sentencing practices in cases of sexual assault and rape. Their core focus lies in the significance of research and collaborative efforts, recognising that to have evidence-based policies, we must first establish a foundation of valid and reliable evidence. By embracing these recommendations, it is the opinion of this Report’s authors that Queensland can progress toward a criminal justice system that is not only more equitable and effective but also in alignment with the values of our community.