spinofflive
FeatureImage_CultureReports.png

PoliticsNovember 13, 2023

What are cultural sentencing reports and why does National want to scrap them?

FeatureImage_CultureReports.png

While section 27 pre-sentencing reports are used by all ethnicities, Māori will be hurt most by National’s plan to defund them, say report writers Tara Oakley and Rebecca Cupples.

What is a section 27 cultural report?

Section 27 reports are pre-sentencing background reports. They go to a judge after an offender has pleaded guilty to an offence, or been found guilty at trial, and before they are sentenced for their crime.

Why is it called that?

They are named after section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Section 27 allows an offender to ask the court to hear any people they choose to speak about their personal, family, whānau, community, and cultural background. It is an expansion of its predecessor, section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.

What’s the purpose of them?

Section 27 reports look for reasons, not excuses, for an offender’s behaviour. They consider how someone’s background might have contributed to their offending, if any actions have been taken to resolve the offending, and what support mechanisms might prevent further offending.

The backgrounds of offenders commonly include things like substance abuse disorders, mood disorders, personality disorders, neurodivergence, learning difficulties, illiteracy, brain injuries, poverty, and trauma – including extraordinary rates of historic family, sexual, and violent victimisation. State care is another commonality. One-third of children placed in state care between 1950 and 1999 were incarcerated as adults; for Māori, that figure increased to more than 40%.

If these drivers of offending go unaddressed, the likelihood of further offending is high. If a judge doesn’t know what factors contributed to an offender’s behaviour, they cannot address them at sentencing.

National justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith. The party has pledged to remove taxpayer funding for s 27 reports. (Photo: Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

When did they start being used?

The first written section 27 reports didn’t appear until 2017. From 1985 until 2017, the provisions of the Sentencing Act went largely unused. This was because of obstacles to the act’s vision of having whānau address judges directly in court. Judges were ambivalent about whānau speaking in court, whānau had little faith in criminal justice system processes, and offenders often had no whānau willing or able to speak for them. Written reports subsequently became part of the sentencing process.

Have they worked?

Research published in 2020 found that lawyers who used section 27 reports perceived positive results, including better sentencing outcomes, enlightening the offender and reconnecting them with whānau/family/community, educating the judiciary and court practitioners, and reducing recidivism. They also suggested that reports can be used imperfectly and inconsistently, so there is scope for improving how section 27 reports are used by the court.

Who have they served the most and why?

A person of any ethnicity has the right to request a section 27 report. Our own data shows that there is an almost direct correlation between statistics regarding the different ethnicities processed through the court system, and the reports written. This is maybe slightly skewed towards Māori, however we believe this is perhaps the result of a misconception that these reports are only for Māori.

What’s being proposed for the next government?

Currently, a lawyer can apply for additional legal aid funding when a section 27 report may be helpful. The incoming government proposes to remove that funding. The National Party, for example, have said this is because s 27 reports are written by “individuals without expertise or qualifications” and are “designed to influence judges to deliver lighter sentences”.

This interpretation fails to acknowledge the purpose and intent of the Sentencing Act and the reports, along with the qualifications and experience of the report writers. For example, our report writing collective, Sentence Equality, includes graduates from law, criminology, sociology, anthropology, education and health disciplines.

If they were axed, what would that mean for defendants, particularly Māori?

Section 27 (and its predecessor) arose from a clear and urgent need to address inequitable criminal justice outcomes for Māori, to recognise that prison sentences were failing to prevent recidivist offending, and to prioritise options for rehabilitation and community-based redress where possible. Removing funding for section 27 reports is removing action on those fronts.

With funding for written reports removed, section 27 provisions will be available only to those with access to private financial resources. Wealthier groups would have a greater level of representation in Court than those in poverty. This is a significant concern for Māori who remain culturally, socially, and financially disenfranchised.

Written section 27 reports are available to, and used by, all ethnicities. However, the ongoing tragedy of Māori over-representation in court means defunding these reports has a disparate, negative impact for Māori who will suffer significant harm by the incoming government’s proposed actions.

Tara Oakley (Ngāti Tāwhaki, Ngāi Tūhoe) and Rebecca Cupples are report writers for Sentence Equality.

Keep going!
The leaders of the five countries with veto power on the UN Security Council
The leaders of the five countries with veto power on the UN Security Council

OPINIONPoliticsNovember 10, 2023

Five countries have veto power on the UN Security Council, to the detriment of us all

The leaders of the five countries with veto power on the UN Security Council
The leaders of the five countries with veto power on the UN Security Council

A UN Security Council resolution for a ‘humanitarian pause’ in Gaza was vetoed by the US last month. Mira Karunanidhi argues it’s yet another example of a broken system.

The United Nations was created during the post-World War II era to replace the  failed League of Nations and, in the opening words of the UN charter, to “save  succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. The charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council, the most powerful organ. Its primary mandate is to maintain international peace and security.  

The Security Council is the most powerful UN body for the following reasons:  

(i) All UN member states are obligated to accept and carry out the decisions of  the Security Council;

(ii) Only the Security Council has the power to make binding decisions that member states are obligated to implement; and  

(iii) Each of the five permanent members (the P5) of the Security Council has veto power over any matter voted upon by the Security Council.  

The veto power held by the P5 is the most significant distinction between permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council. The Security Council is comprised of representatives from 15 countries. The P5 are the United States, United Kingdom, China, Russia and France.  The 10 non-permanent  members are each elected by the General Assembly, which comprises all 193 UN member states, for a two-year term. The five regional groups within the UN – African, Asian, Eastern European, Latin American and Caribbean, and Western European and  Others Group (WEOG) – each have their allocation of seats. This process aims to  ensure equitable geographical representation and gives various regions a voice in the Council’s decision-making.  

But the P5 all must agree to endorse any resolution for it to pass and any one country can vote against or “veto” a resolution to prevent it from passing. Consequently, the power of the veto often prevents the council from being effective in the face of large international crises and mass atrocities. 

Israel and Palestine

On October 7, 2023, amid soaring Israeli-Palestinian tensions, Palestinian armed  group, Hamas, entered Israel and killed and captured hundreds of Israeli forces and civilians. Israel declared a state of war and began striking Gaza, including residential  buildings, schools and hospitals where Israel claimed Hamas militants were operating from. Since then, thousands of Palestinians have been killed, injured and displaced in airstrikes on the Gaza Strip. Millions of Palestinians have been cut off from food, water, medicine, electricity and fuel. All major UN agencies have called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and an unconditional release of hostages.  

The recent atrocities are the culmination of the enduring conflict between Israel and Palestine. However, the role the UN has played in this conflict dates back to 1947 when the UN voted for Palestine to be divided into two separate Jewish and Arab states. More recently, the UN has been actively involved in seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict, however it has instead highlighted the limitations and challenges the United Nations Security Council faces, emphasising the need for reform. 

Fire and smoke rise above buildings in Gaza City during an Israeli air strike on October 8 (Photo: IBRAHIM HAMS/AFP via Getty Images)

On October 18, 2023, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a “humanitarian pause” to deliver lifesaving aid to people in Gaza. Twelve of the council’s 15 members voted in favour of the resolution proposed by Brazil, the US voted against, and Russia and the UK abstained. Since a vote “against” from any of the P5 prevents any resolution from being passed, the Security Council’s response to the crisis was marred by the use of the veto power by the US. 

The US is one of Israel’s closest allies and has used its veto powers on several occasions to block any resolution that did not protect Israel’s interests. Most of these resolutions called for peace in the decades-long Israel-Palestine conflict.  

By failing to pass a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire, the Security Council is failing unequivocally in its primary duty of maintaining international peace and security. The UN was created for the very purpose of saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war, but it has failed the thousands of Palestinian and Israeli  children who have lived through nothing but conflict their entire lives.  

The need for reform

Since its establishment in 1945, the composition of the Security Council has remained virtually unchanged. However, the council is arguably no longer fit for purpose and no longer reflects the drastic changes to the geopolitical landscape that have occurred since the post-World War era. The calls for reform from the international community have increased since the war in Ukraine, as draft resolutions calling for Moscow to stop its attack on Ukraine were barred by the Russian veto. These calls should similarly increase now in the face of the mass atrocities occurring in Israel and Palestine.  

The influence the P5 holds within the UN institution is disproportionate and the veto powers conferred upon them merely serve to benefit and protect the P5’s national interests. It is inherently counterproductive to maintaining international peace and security and has ultimately resulted in a decline in the Security Council’s legitimacy.  

Abolishing the veto entirely would be beneficial for the entire international community. However, the UN charter grants the P5 veto over any charter amendments, meaning they would have to approve of any amendments to their own veto power. Given the difficulty of implementing such reform, an alternative is that the P5 should not be entitled to utilise their veto powers in the face of mass atrocities and crimes against humanity. 

The supremacy of five nations should not be preserved above all other members of the General Assembly, as it fundamentally contradicts the rule of law and is undemocratic. Similarly, a single member state’s interests should not be entitled to override the collective will of the international community. The veto powers granted to the P5 contribute to the Council’s inability to take decisive action on critical international issues. The P5’s repeated use of the veto has led many member states to question the effectiveness and relevance of the Security Council in addressing the challenges of the 21st century. 

Reforming the United Nations Security Council is not a simple task. It involves complex negotiations and considerations of each member’s national interests. However, the necessity of such reform is clear. The current structure, marred by the persistent use of veto powers and an outdated composition, undermines the very principles of the United Nations – peace, security and equality among nations. The  Security Council must evolve to meet the demands of our rapidly changing world and regain the trust and confidence of the international community. The path to reform may be long and challenging, but it is a journey that must be undertaken for the sake of true global peace and security.

Politics