Sentencing reform legislation has passed its final reading, writes Alice Neville in today’s extract from The Bulletin.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
Sentencing reform legislation passed its final reading
The government’s sentencing reform legislation passed its final reading in parliament yesterday, marking “a significant milestone in this government’s mission to restore law and order”, according to justice minister Paul Goldsmith. The reforms, which will come into force three months after royal assent is granted (likely to be in the coming days), include capping the sentence discounts that judges can apply at 40%, preventing repeat discounts for youth and remorse, introducing a new aggravating factor to address offences against sole charge workers and those whose home and business are interconnected, encouraging the use of cumulative sentencing for offences committed while on bail, in custody or on parole, introducing a sliding scale for early guilty pleas, and amending the principles of sentencing to take into account victims’ interests. All three opposition parties voted against the bill, but Labour leader Chris Hipkins wouldn’t confirm whether a future Labour government would repeal the reforms, reports the Herald.
The background to the reforms
Their passing represents another tick on the coalition’s tough-on-crime to-do list, joining the gang patch ban, the return of the three strikes law and bootcamps for youth offenders. Aspects of the sentencing reforms fulfil campaign promises made by all three parties, with National campaigning on the restrictions on sentence discounts, while the work-related aggravating factor and victims’ interest reforms were committed to in the National-Act coalition agreement. The latter was also in the NZ First agreement, as was a commitment to “remove concurrent sentences for those who commit offences while on parole, on bail, or whilst in custody”. This was watered down in the bill to become “encouraging the use of cumulative sentencing” after the Ministry of Justice’s regulatory impact statement (RIS) found it could double the prison population and cost Corrections $1bn a year. The reforms are now predicted to increase the prison population by 1,350 over the next decade, at a cost of $152.7m, according to the RIS.
‘A culture of excuses for crime’
“In recent years, courts have imposed fewer and shorter prison sentences, despite an alarming increase in violent crime, ram raids and aggravated robberies,” said Goldsmith in a press release announcing the bill had passed its third reading. The Spinoff has covered the problems with claims alleging an “alarming increase in violent crime”, but what about fewer and shorter prison sentences? “We know that undue leniency has resulted in a loss of public confidence in sentencing, and our justice system as a whole,” Goldsmith continued. “We developed a culture of excuses for crime. That ends today.”
The RIS, which Derek Cheng of the NZ Herald reported (paywalled) on in September last year as the bill was introduced, did note a decrease in the use of imprisonment for serious offences such as burglary and robbery. It also noted feedback from stakeholders like the judiciary, the NZ Law Society, the Parole Board and others, which “pushed back against the notion that sentencing outcomes have become more ‘lenient’. Instead, judicial sentencing decisions respond to emerging evidence (for example, in response to an increased scientific understanding of adolescent brain development)”, it said.
Limiting judicial discretion
The RIS said the reforms, especially when combined with the implementation of the three strikes regime, represented a “significant shift in the willingness to limit judicial discretion to ensure a more retributive response to offending. Generally, restricting judicial discretion and prescriptive sentencing frameworks can make sentencing less efficient.” It could also result in legal challenges on procedural grounds or for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, said the RIS. “A prescriptive approach can drive court delays as sentencing becomes increasingly complex and can drive the potential for later guilty pleas, which in turn may lead to an increase in the prison and remand populations.”
As AUT law professor Kris Gledhill wrote for The Conversation, “If a judge feels obliged to impose a higher sentence because of the new amendments, lawyers will have to advise defendants accordingly. Inevitably, more will decide to take their chances in a trial rather than plead guilty. That means more complainants will have to give evidence, some defendants will be acquitted, and the criminal justice system will creak more.”
