The 38 judges interviewed rarely practice 'sentence indication' (or plea bargaining) in Victoria's superior courts. Those who favor the practice note its positive effects on time and costs. In contrast, those who oppose it seem to be more concerned with the appearance of justice than with the position of the accused. Some of the judges interviewed also indicated that their views on sentence indication were affected by the decision and publicity in R. vs. Bruce. In that case, Bruce was twice induced to plead guilty because of what he understood to be a trial judge's indication that a noncustodial sentence would be imposed. However, a prosecutor's appeal resulted in his receiving a prison term, while his coconspirators received a good behavior bond. Unlike U.S. judges, the majority of judges in Victoria maintained that their sentencing did not vary based on whether a defendant had pleaded guilty or whether the defendant was found guilty. The judges viewed less overcharging or more charge negotiations with the Crown as a means of relieving the backlog of criminal cases. The judges appeared to recognize the administrative value of sentence indication but opposed the introduction of guidelines to regulate the practice. Data tables and footnotes are included.