• Home (1)Our Home page
• Join up!Join Sensible Sentencing, get involved, help balance the scales of justice!
• ArticlesArticles on law and order and sentencing issues
• NewslettersOur current newsletter and archive of previous newsletters
• StatisticsNew Zealand and International Crime Statistics
• Goals+PolicyOur policies and goals
• SubmissionsOur submissions on various bills plus the Victims Requests List
• Press Releases Current plus archived releases and other media material
• What's On Current Campaigns, Events and Public Meetings plus pictures etc from previous events
• Useful InfoMP Database, Parole Board details etc
• Victims' StoriesA place where victims can tell their own stories in their own words
• ContactsHow to get hold of us
• LinksLinks to other site, plus PC security stuff
• Access Keys (0)Accessibility Information for disabled users

Our Homepage Submissions Police Act Review Disclosure to Court of Defendants’ previous convictions Criminal Proceeds Recovery Bill Youth Justice 2007 Criminal Justice Reform Bill Inquiry into Victim Rights Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill Prisoners and Victims Claims Bill Victim's Request List DNA Bill Victims Rights Bill Sentencing and Parole Bill

Submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Criminal Justice Reform Bill

2 :Introduction

1.1     I make this personal submission to the Criminal Justice Reform Bill

1.2     I request to be heard in support of this submission.

1.3     The address for correspondence in relation to this submission is as follows :

Peter Jenkins
P.O. Box 7651
Wellesley Street
Auckland
Mobile/txt : 0274 338562
Email : laworder@xtra.co.nz

1.4     Most of the points I address in this submission arise within the Explanatory Notes

1.5.1 In the Introduction it is noted that our imprisonment rate is higher than that of other comparable administrations. This is not entirely surprising – we have a high crime rate, and our rate of imprisonment per crime committed or per conviction is not a high as in the US.

It is also stated that “The purpose of the Bill is to introduce a range of measures to arrest the sharp increase in the prison population in recent years. This increase is no longer sustainable, neither financially nor socially.” I cannot help but refer to Ron Mark’s pithy summation here as follows; “What drivel. That is a politically correct approach to a problem that this Government finds embarrassing. Let me make it clear. New Zealand First does not have a problem with the large number of people in jail. What we have a problem with is the absolute ineffectiveness of the rehabilitation programmes and plans, which results in people going back to jail.” I could not have put that better!

1.5.2 The closing statement of the first paragraph of the Background states that “…the Bill seeks to….. provide a greater range of sentencing options to the courts in order to reduce the number of offenders sent to prison.” Certainly for non-violent offenders this is entirely reasonable, for example imprisonment for the possession of cannabis for medicinal purposes I consider to be quite unproductive and a waste of prison capacity which should be used to isolate someone genuinely dangerous from society.

1.5.3 In Part 1 of the Summary of Key measures it is proposed that a Sentencing Council be established. This has some downsides, in that such a body can be used as a “scapegoat” and a means of avoiding accountability for ineffective sentencing. It also has the potential to create yet another bureaucracy. If sentencing guidelines are to be set – not a bad idea – they should be set directly by legislation.

Another issue that needs to be considered is that if we are to have a Sentencing Council how are its members to be appointed. As it stands it appears that it is to be a non-elected body, with members appointed by the Governor-general, plus some judges. In my view it would be preferable for it to be an elected body if it is to be implemented at all.

1.5.4 Further in Part 1 of the Summary of Key measures it is mentioned that as a result of the proposed parole changes the sentences imposed by Judges need to be about 25% shorter on average. This is not what the public has asked for, especially in the case of serious repeat violent offenders.

1.5.5 In Part 2 of the Summary of Key measures there is an outline of the Acts to be amended. One of the objectives of the proposed amendments to the Bail Act 2000 is to“ensure that offenders are not unnecessarily remanded in custody rather than on bail.”

But the major problem we have is that too many offenders already re-offend on bail, especially those on bail for violent offences. No-one is complaining that not enough offenders are on bail! It would be preferable to restrict bail to those with no previous history of violence and/or sexual offending, given that past history is the best predictor of future behaviour. This would be both clearer and safer for the public.

1.5.6 It is proposed further to amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to increase the range of non-custodial sentences available to the courts, establish a new sentence of intensive supervision, and establish Home Detention as a sentence in it’s own right. These are all good ideas providing they are not used for violent and/or sexual offenders for which they are quite inappropriate. Past misuse of such innovations has led to public distrust of future innovations which is a shame, as the problem has been their misapplication to offenders that the public rightly perceive as too much of a threat to be placed out in the community.

Further to the above, if there is to be greater use of community sentences such as supervision, we need to ensure that the Probation Service is up to the task. It appears that they are not currently.

1.5.7 It is also proposed to amend the Parole Act 2002 to move parole eligibility out to two thirds of the sentence from the current one third, and make other changes. I fully support these changes, as they will make life easier for victims and the Parole Board.

1.5.8 Under Miscellaneous matters it is proposed to amend the Parole Act 2002 to strengthen the management of child sex offenders, with a number of specific changes, all of which are good. However, in addition the public need to be kept informed of what is going on with such offenders at every stage of the process. This will serve to reduce fear and distrust.

1.5.9 Further on under Miscellaneous matters it is proposed to defer the date of the sunset clause of Prisoners and Victims Claims Act. This is a good aim as far as it goes, but could be taken further. More courageous would be to simply strike out the sunset clause altogether.

2)

2.1 I look forward to expanding on my support of this Bill in my verbal submission before the select committee.

2.2 In summary, I support the Bill but with the qualifications and reservations mentioned above