Offender DatabasesViolent and Sexual Offender Databases |
Victims MemorialA memorial to those murdered in NZ in the last twenty years |
Murder Maps Location Map of murders so far this year
EDUCATE . ADVOCATE . SUPPORT
SITEMAP(3)Where to find everything here | FAQFrequently Asked Questions | New!New on this site lately |  Chinese language summary
|
escalating violence in our community
Become a member of the
Sensible Sentencing Trust
17Newsletter 17
16Newsletter 16
15Newsletter 15
14Newsletter 14
13
12Newsletter 12
11Newsletter 11
10Newsletter 10
9Newsletter 9
8Newsletter 8
7Newsletter 7
6Newsletter 6
5Newsletter 5
4Newsletter 4
3Newsletter 3
2Newsletter 2
1Newsletter 1
In the worst example of Victims’ Rights abuse in modern-day history the Government has chosen to ignore victims’ pleas and ridicule democracy in the process.
Picture: Garth McVicar
Most New Zealanders consider 13 to be an unlucky number, but it was actually the number 5 that turned out to be unlucky for Victims of abuse as the Government chose to ignore their pleas in an absolute atrocious and blatant abuse of New Zealand’s so-called democratic system.
The 5th day of the 5th month of the 5th year of this century turned out to be a black day for Victims Rights in this country. That was the day Government proceeded to introduce the most Draconian piece of legislation this country has seen for a long time. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill was the Governments pathetic attempt to pacify the public outrage at compensation being awarded to prisoners for some factious abuse of their “Human Rights”.
What this legislation means is that prisoners will continue clogging up our courts and continue being paid thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money. Watch the legal aid gravy train lawyers milk every dollar possible out of this legislation.
Once again Criminal Rights’ take precedence over Victims’ Rights
While the Bill allows victims of the prisoner to take legal action and claim any windfalls the prisoner may be awarded, in reality the stress and fear of retaliation will prevent victims doing so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question must be asked: “Whose side is the Government really on, victims or criminals?"
The Sensible Sentencing Trust had organised a wide range of Victims to travel to Parliament and present submissions, these courageous people were unanimous that none of them wanted any of the criminal contaminated money, all they requested was an assurance that:
This was a simple request and common sense solution to a self-inflicted problem!
The willy-nilly signing of various warm, fuzzy UN treaties has encouraged criminal friendly Judges to make awards to prisoners under so-called breaches of human rights laws. New Zealand is a Sovereign Nation - these treaties are not binding on this country!!
If they were, Tai Hobson, the man who lost his wife in the RSA tragedy would not still be fighting for justice!
It was a classic bungle by Corrections Dept staff when they failed to monitor William Bell’s parole conditions that allowed Bell to kill three innocent Kiwis in the Mount Wellington-Panmure RSA.
If Judges want an example of “Human Rights” abuse they need look no further than the RSA tragedy. Mary Hobson, Wayne Johnson and William Absolum were murdered, and Susan Couch still suffers from the horrific injuries William Bell inflicted!!
The prisoners are laughing all the way to the bank.
It took an enormous amount of courage for victims including Tai Hobson to appear before Parliament; to now be told that the “human rights” of the criminal outweighs the rights of the victim is hugely insulting and a travesty of justice.
5-5-5 was a black day and a setback for Victims Rights but the battle to ensure Justice for Victims WILL CONTINUE.
We would like to thank all our members for their continued support.
Garth
National Office : PO Box 701 NAPIER Phone (06) 835 5521 Fax (06) 835 5520 National Chairman : Garth McVicar (027) 248 7919
The Trust assisted many victims who wished to make submissions
and also appear before the Parliamentary Select Committee to
voice their disgust regarding prisoners being paid compensation.
At present the Bill allows prisoners to claim compensation.
The funds then go into a victims’ trust account, which allows the
victims to make a claim on the money. All victims we have spoken
to say they don’t want any of the money and that
prisoners should not receive any compensation in the first place.
Wendy Pedler
My daughter Colleen Burrows was murdered by Sam Te Hei in a brutal cold-blooded calculated killing in 1987. He kicked and bashed my daughter to death because she refused to have sex with him and his mates. Te Hei says he has been treated badly in prison. He kicked and bashed my little girl so bad that she was not recognisable. He says his human rights were breached – He dumped my little girl on the riverbed and continued to kick and beat her then ran over her with his car. Now he wants human rights! Human rights are for human beings.
Te Hei is not a human being. My family doesn’t want Te Hei to have any of the money he has been awarded.
Te Hei is a criminal – prison is for punishment.
-(Sam Te Hei has already been paid $90,000 compensation.)
My wife Mary was brutally murdered 4 years ago with 2 others and another left for dead at the Mt Wellington-Panmure RSA by William Bell.
Bell was on parole for aggravated robbery at the time with 102 convictions. Bell was not meeting his parole conditions even being charged with assault on a female while on parole and still not recalled or correctly monitored by Probation Services. Mary and the other RSA victims would be alive today if the Government services that are required to protect us had followed their own rules and regulations.
Criminals are being allowed to seek compensation for the wrongs done to them when the system fails. Yet when a victim finally finds the strength to speak up and seek redress for the wrongs done to them when the same system fails they are persecuted. We have been wronged and should at least be given the same basic human right to seek justice as the criminals.
My family was attacked as we slept in our beds. Both my little boys had their heads bashed in while sleeping. Simon, my 7-year-old, died from his injuries. Anthony Roma was charged with his murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was subsequently released and within 4 months committed another offence and was sent back to prison. I am horrified to think of prisoners receiving any form of compensation. I fail to understand how criminals who have committed the most despicable acts on another human being have any rights to claim compensation under to Human Rights Act.
My son Simon’s right to life should surely take precedent. I received no compensation for this man attacking us and murdering my son. Where is the justice when prisoners receive compensation for relatively minor mistreatment, compared to a 7-year-old being murdered and my family losing a son, brother, grandson, nephew and friend?
On March 11, 2002, I received a phone call from a friend in Waitara asking if I had heard from dad that day as there had been a man found dead in the Waitara River rumoured to be my father.
I insisted to Police that I wanted to be at the river as they recovered the body so I could confirm immediately if it was dad. I have always thought of myself as a rational and calm person having first-hand experience with incidents involving suicides and fatal car crashes. But nothing could have prepared me for the way in which dad had met his end. I was not surprised to be told the murder weapon was a hammer as something had been used repeatedly with excessive force. There was evidence of kicking and stomping, dragging him 20 metres to the river and then throwing him on to the rocks and then going back a second time to drag him further in. But it was beyond belief when I was told that the culprits were five youths aged 11 to 14 years, four of which were girls. The following weeks and months were a nightmare of depositions, trials and evidence. All made more difficult on our family as these were youth offenders and the rules for them were different even though they committed a crime of murder. We had to constantly request permission to attend any hearings and were always limited to six family members with no limits for them.
Defence lawyers requested an alternative to the High Court robes, as it was intimidating for the youths. We witnessed them having contact with their families outside the court. My family and I were subjected to abuse from the offenders, their families and supporters both in and out of the courtroom. It was clear to us the offenders had all the rights and protection, while we the victims had little.
The Judge sentenced one girl to 8 years 3 months, giving us a glimpse of justice, but by not imposing a minimum non-parole period, made the offender eligible for parole at 2 years 9 months. The Appeal Court in its wisdom then reduced her sentence to 6years 6 months. Stating that “the sentence was manifestly excessive and that more credit should be given to the girl’s age, remorse and lack of convictions. I was incredulous at these statements and say that the murder was horrendous and manifestly excessive. Why would we give credit at any age for an act of murder? How many convictions for murder would they want?
No one in our family has had any display of remorse shown to us whatsoever in fact totally the opposite. The girl we’re talking about put her finger up, wasn’t cooperative with Police, lied and pleaded guilty to manslaughter at the end of the trial which the Crown accepted against family wishes and Police. I find it unacceptable that our family was not entitled any opinion concerning the Crown’s plea bargaining with the offenders. The Crown, against the family’s wishes, accepted a second manslaughter plea for exchange for testimony and did not pursue any prosecution toward the last two co-offenders in exchange for their testimony.
For us all that wheeling and dealing lessened the accountability of the five youths involved and the penalty that should have been imposed for taking an innocent life. I also believe that families should not be excluded from any part of the legal proceedings as we were.
I am disgusted with the legal system that it would consider these sentences justice. The punishment imposed was absolutely inadequate. The offenders only having to serve just over two years before being eligible for home detention and parole or as I put it “eligible to put us through hell again”. So we can look forward to many years of pleading with Parole boards to deliver justice, to see these offenders serve as much of their “fluffy human rights” sentences as possible.
Surely a family robbed of a loved one in such a savage, premeditated manner should not have to deal with home detention and parole hearings only two and half years after the murder of our loved one.
The legal system seems so blindly focused on offender’s rights, confusing those with human rights. The victims become victims not only of the crime, but also of the system.
Dean
All contributions for this column would be most welcomed.
SST says New Zealand is paying the price for these pathetic sentences now; 25 murders so far this year. The ‘SOFT’ social experiment is a dismal failure. Those responsible for implementing SOFT policy should be held accountable.
Over the last three Newsletters the Trust has given all Justice MPs from each party a chance to comment on the question “ Why parole?” The following two statements close this segment.
(On Page 5 we have taken a small sentence from each of the previous statements as a reminder!)
It is a fundamental entitlement of all New Zealanders to live in a safe society, protected from those who would do them harm. In regard, New Zealand First’s policy reflects that to a ‘T’. We have long been against the paroling of serious and violent offenders for the very reason that all too often ordinary citizens are placed in harm’s way as a result, with offenders being released with no real evidence of readiness or suitable rehabilitation. How many times have we seen tragedy happen as a result of this? It is hard to overlook the many violent crimes committed while an offender is on parole. The high rate of recidivism generally in this country is evidence of the failure of rehabilitation and the parole system, and the effectiveness of the Parole Board to properly assess an offender’s suitability to make a return to society.
The public is further at risk from the increasing use of home detention to place violent offenders back in our midst, something it was never intended for but which is happening nonetheless.
That is why New Zealand First’s key initiatives will be to:
Recent cases have highlighted the ignorance of people to the history of parolees and detainees placed in the very heart of their community and homes. The PC excuse that parolees have a right to privacy should NOT be placed above the safety of others. We will require full disclosure of the criminal history of home detainees and parolees, so that innocent people will know who it is they are offering a place to live, or a job, or allowing near their children.
But before that even happens, we want to ensure that any offender leaving prison poses no further risk to the community in which they will find themselves. New Zealand First believes that parole is something to be earned, not given as a right.
Garth’s word :
We congratulate NZ First for adopting SST policy on Home Detention; their policy on Parole and Rehabilitation is a step in the right direction. With many SST law and order policies hopefully they will be in a position of influence after the next election.
I was horrified to hear the Parole Board chairman Justice Tony Ellis last June describe board members as risk-takers who "live in hope" that the probation service will properly monitor inmates when it releases them.
“I was not aware,” he said, “that so many paroled people never got to their probation officer".
Many members of the Sensible Sentencing Trust probably were aware. You know as well as I do that there are serious problems with the administration of parole. Like a number of elements of the criminal justice system, poor implementation has discredited what is a sound policy. Why not just abolish parole? Because despite the flaws, the statistics show that it is better than nothing.
Parole accomplishes three things. It improves prisoner conduct in prison, it improves reoffending rates, and it allows inmates to be monitored on release. That parole does improve the conduct of inmates is recognised by prison staff. Research by Proctor and Pease (2000) has also confirmed that access to parole hearings has a significant impact on misconduct.
That parole improves reoffending is also supported by the evidence. The Department of Corrections' recidivism index (Annual report 02/03) shows that in the 24 months after release by the Parole Board, 15.6% of those released on discretionary parole had been reconvicted of an offence. Those given mandatory release (usually automatic release after serving two-thirds of a sentence for a serious violent offence, under the old legislation) had a reconviction rate of 28.7% -- nearly twice as high.
This indicates that parole release with conditions and the prospect of recall reduces the likelihood of reoffending compared with automatic release when someone has simply "served their time".Under the new Sentencing Act, automatic release no longer exists for sentences over 6 months.
Lastly, parole allows monitoring of released prisoners. The problem is, as I noted at the start, that monitoring is inadequate and this has led to some horrific outcomes. More resourcing and support for the probation service to fulfil this monitoring function is urgently needed.
Having parole is better than not having it, for all its problems. Offenders will get out sooner or later, and a system to deal with release is essential. The parole system does need to be fixed, but we would be foolish in my opinion to chuck it away
Garth’s word :
Nandor is quite correct. The Parole Board policy of
‘ live in hope’ is simply not good enough when innocent people are loosing their lives.
We will continue to lobby the Green Party on Law and Order issues.
"Those who say parole should be abolished and replaced with supervision after a sentence are opting for a weaker system. It can’t allow for recall to a prison sentence if the prison sentence has already finished".
Garth’s word :
A legislation change is all that is required to ensure criminals at risk of offending are not released. We will continue to lobby Labour on these issues.
"There is no evidence that parole works for any of its stated purposes- There is no evidence that parole is any more effective in promoting rehabilitation than the US Federal system. That sets a period of supervision to start after every sentence"
Garth’s word :
To reduce the level of offending it is essential that potential dangerous criminals are not released into an unsuspecting community. We congratulate ACT on this sensible policy proposal.
"The closer you look, the clearer it becomes that a huge part of crime in this country comes from slack parole policies. William Duane Bell could have been stopped if his parole had been administered properly".
Garth’s word :
Under National, criminals like Bell will not be released.
“. . . . About Time”
"Few issues raise the hackles of the public in anger order terms as much as the seemingly failed “experimen” of parole. Those who support the current practice of a probationary system are an endangered species".
Garth’s word :
Many innocent people have their loves ones due to
This “failed experiment. We look forward to this “charade” being terminated under a United Future collation Govt.
The Insurance Council has also joined the call for a rise in police numbers. They say criminals are costing insurers $20-million a month and being empowered by under-resourced and over-stretched Police. Despite figures showing a drop in crime, the council believed there had been a significant increase in "the threat of serious violent crimes and class A drug crime which includes methamphetamine and robbery". A spokesperson for Police Minister George Hawkins said the council “should be pleased dishonesty offences were down 9.7% in 2004 and property damage down 5.4%.
The Sensible Sentencing Trust fully supports Insurance Council in their call for more police and greater resources.
RATIO OF POLICE – PEOPLE
New Zealand & Australia figures are for 2003. All others 2002: Source NZ Police Association
While the Trust is pleased dishonesty offences and property damage are supposedly down. We are greatly disturbed that violent crime has increased and would have thought our Police Minister should be equally disturbed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SST team once again thanks members who take the time to write. We have received mountains of positive letters since our last newsletter. Following are a few of the letters we received.
Your support and contact is very important to us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations for the achievements made up to this point. These changes are long overdue. It is encouraging to see that the National Party supports these changes. Keep up the good work.
Mount Maunganui.
I am extremely pleased that you are doing something about the pathetic laws of our country. I am totally convinced that some people in the human rights/civil liberties movement in NZ must be mentally deranged.
Paraparaumu.
Everyone in prison is there of their own free will. If someone acts in a way that will incur a prison sentence, it’s their choice if that’s where they go and they are not deserving of the sympathy sometimes afforded them or the feeble excuses made by their lawyers. Congratulations on all you have achieved.
Havelock North.
Well done Garth and team for putting voice to the thoughts of so many ordinary New Zealanders, who’s apathy for the most part, renders them silent objectors. Good luck for ongoing success.
Hawke’s Bay.
I do voluntary work and see first hand how fickle the law is and how inadequate the court system is for those on the receiving end of all kinds of crime. Thank God for people like you and all who support you. Keep up the good work.
Hamilton.
I very much hope that you are able to one day close the trust down as Government takes on the responsibility of representing people’s wishes. I would also take the opportunity to praise all of you for standing up and making a voice for the noise we create. You are making a difference.
Havelock North.
I write to you as just an ordinary “Joe Citizen” to add support for you call to have compensation paid to criminals stopped. That this situation has been allowed to develop has appalled and stunned me. We have greedy lawyers who will milk this for all its worth. It absolutely sickens me at what is happening to law and order in our country. The Police do a great job, only to be let down by the courts. What of referendum, why did the Government go to the bother of asking its people, as it certainly didn’t follow through? I admire the work you are doing to overturn this ridiculous situation.
Napier
I am sick and tired of the nonsense that passes for justice in our courts today. That prisoners should be given financial compensation is a sick joke, when a man like Tai Hobson is denied any help at all. Bless you for the good work you are doing.
Tauranga.
We are a Returned Service couple and are absolutely enraged at the treatment being meted out to Tai Hobson. It is no wonder these criminals walk around sticking their finger in the air to all and sundry. So-called Justice is an absolute farce.
Auckland.
I particularly agree with your opposition to the crazy situation of compensation for criminals. Criminals have forfeited any rights they had when they offended against society.
Tauranga.
Keep up the good work and keep up the pressure on all MPs who have been snared by the bureaucracy, which so obviously fails to deliver justice. In many ways NZ is becoming an unfair country. If you speed slightly you get walloped, if you are one day late with a tax payment, likewise. Yet if you commit serious crimes you get bail, parole and community service. If you are fined and don’t pay, you get let off.
Lower Hutt.
Good luck guys with your bid to stop the insane payouts to the criminals. I’m behind you 150%. Keep up the awesome work.
Papakura.
What is home detention? There are two types: One, known as front-end home detention, allows prisoners serving a sentence of two years or less to live at home for most of the time. The other called back-end detention, lets prisoners serve the last three months of their sentence at home.
How many people are on it? There are 510 people on home detention as at January 23 this year.
Can they leave their house? Yes. Approval can be granted for prisoners to leave their homes for a variety of reasons, including going to work, playing sport, attending medical and dental appointments or going shopping.
Can they leave whenever they like? No. Prisoners have to ask for, and be granted, leave to go out at specific times. Can all prisoners get home detention? No. The sentencing judge can grant a prisoner leave to apply for front-end home detention. The parole board then has to approve this. The board also decides whether to provide backend home detention if a prisoner applies.
How are prisoners monitored? Prisoners are fitted with electronic ankle bracelets that send an alarm to a monitoring company if the wearer leaves the property.
Who monitors the alarms? The contract for monitoring the alarms is held by a private security firm Chubb. It was granted a five year extension to the contract last year.
"Bad laws are the worst sort of Tyranny"
- Edmund Burke
Thank you…
Inquiries by the weekend Press into widespread illegal cellphone use turned up a host of other perks enjoyed by inmates. These included a barbecue at Paparua Prison that served up venison steaks, crayfish and choice cuts of meats. HB inmates shared a pig on a spit. Although paid for by the inmates, disgusted prison officers have to fetch such meals. “There is nothing they can’t get in prison” said one officer. “It’s a joke” said another.“ If the public realised what really went on in prisons, they would be ringing their MPs and storming Parliament”. Guards also complain of having to intervene when inmates have sex in the prison yards during family days.
Factor in the free meals and toiletries, spare time, no responsibilities, computer and gym access, paid part-time work, student loans, sex, drugs, and gambling, suddenly jail does not seem so tough after all.
(Above excerpts taken from article printed in The Press, Christchurch- 9/4/05)
And …. some wonder why our reoffending rate is so high And what can be done to reduce it!
THE ANSWER DOESN’T REQUIRE A ROCKET SCIENTIST DOES IT?
Home detention should only be used for non-violent first time offenders; It should NEVER be used for criminals with previous offences
The recent trend to give Home Detention before criminals are released on parole is causing confusion, anxiety and added stress for the victims of these crimes.
Carole Marfell was violently assaulted and robbed last September at an ATM. Her assailant had been on home detention when he attacked Carole. “This has destroyed my life,” says Carole.
The Sensible Sentencing Trust says this FAILED legislation should be changed immediately.
Home (1)
|
SITEMAP (3)
|
FAQ
|
New!
|
Articles
|
Newsletters
|
Statistics
|
Join up!
|
What's On
|
Press Releases
|
Contacts
|
Links
|
Victims' Stories
|
Submissions
|
Goals and Policy
|
Victim's Resources
|
Access Keys (0)
|
