escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links or blue arrows above for full page descriptions

1) Life to mean life for aggravated murder with no right of parole?

A 'life' sentence means that an offender is under control for the rest of their life, and under the laws passed by Labour in 2002 an offender could be kept in prison for life if the danger they pose requires this in the interests of public safety.

An inmate sentenced to life will serve at least their minimum non-parole period in prison, before being considered for possible parole. Under the Sentencing Act 2002, the minimum period of time before parole can even be considered for aggravated murder is 17 years. That is just the starting point: under the new law, non-parole periods of up to 30 years have been handed down. In comparison, under the old law the standard non-parole period was 10 years and in 1987, the period was just 7 years.

After serving a minimum non-parole period, an inmate may apply for but will not necessarily be granted parole. If they are released on parole, they may at any time be recalled to prison if they behave in a way that suggests they pose a danger to society.

Parole is not a right under the Parole Act 2002. Parole is granted only if an inmate who is eligible to apply for parole, is judged by the Parole Board not to constitute and undue risk to public safety. This is different from the previous law, under which parole was automatically granted after two-thirds of the sentence regardless of risk.

In general, keeping inmates who no longer pose a risk to society in jail when they are elderly, with extremely high medical and other costs associated with their care, does nothing to promote public safety and is a poor use of taxpayer money.

2) End current parole system and introduce ongoing supervision upon release as determined by a judge for ALL repeat violent offenders and sex offenders?

The Labour-led government reformed the parole system through the Parole Act 2002. Under the old law, most offenders were eligible to apply for parole after serving one-third of their sentence and all offenders (including serious violent offenders) were automatically released after two-thirds regardless of the risk they posed. That law has been changed: now inmates are assessed on an individual risk basis. A judge can impose a minimum non-parole period of up to two-thirds on any dangerous offender, and those that pose an undue risk to public safety may be kept in prison until the very last day of their sentence, and then subjected to up to six months of conditions after release.

In addition, Labour has passed laws that allow child sex offenders to be subject to up to ten years of supervision after they have completed their prison sentence.

Changing the law to keep all inmates in prison for their entire sentence would serve no good purpose: dangerous offenders are already able to be kept in jail. Keeping inmates who do not pose a risk in jail for their full sentence would simply have the effect of doubling the prison population, require at least 10 large new prisons to be built and imposing a further five billion dollars of associated costs on the taxpayer.

3) Compulsory DNA testing upon conviction for Crimes Act crimes?

In 2003 the Labour-led government greatly extended the schedule of offences for which DNA would be collected. This extension includes all offences punishable by 7 years or more imprisonment, as well as the ability to databank offenders currently in prison. DNA tests currently cost around $200 per sample. Given that serious offenders are already able to be tested, there is a diminishing return from extending these costs to cover high-volume, but low seriousness crimes as well. However, if in the future the technology improves to the point where analysis costs are lower, the marginal additional benefit of blanket testing may be justified.

4) Victims before criminals-true restitution and reparation for victims by criminals, plus real support for victims?

The Sentencing Act 2002 passed by the Labour-led government makes it a requirement for reparation to be imposed in every case, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so – such as the futility of imposing reparation on an offender with no money, no job, and prospect of ever repaying what they owe. Imposing reparation in those circumstances simply raises false expectations for the victim and could lead to a perception that justice was never done because the reparation was never paid.

Despite this obvious limitation, the Sentencing Act 2002's greater emphasis on reparation saw a record $18.8 million of reparation orders imposed in 2003.

Labour is the only political party that has led governments which have passed victims' rights legislation. In 1987 we passed the original victims' rights law, the Victims of Offences Act 1987. In 2002, Labour passed the Victims Rights Act to greatly extend the rights put into law in 1987.

Labour has already announced that it will inquire further into the support available to victims and families of victims of serious crime.

5) Provide preventive detention by way of secure confinement for criminally insane or criminals with diagnosed mental illness?

Under the law passed by Labour in 2002, preventive detention - which is a life sentence – was made available for a wider range of sexual and violent offending. It no longer requires a previous record of such offending, and is available for those aged 18 and over (instead of 21 and over which applied previously). In the two and a half years since the Sentencing Act 2002 came into force, 56 offenders were sentenced to preventive detention, compared with 58 in the whole previous five years added together. In 2004, 34 offenders received the sentence, nearly twice the previous high of 18 in the year to June 2000.

The criminally insane, however, have never been subject to prison sentences such as preventive detention. Criminally insane offenders who pose a danger may instead be detained in a high-security mental health facility until they no longer pose a danger.

6) Amend legislation to ensure that any future prisoner compensation be paid direct to victims or a consolidated victim fund?

The Labour-led government recently passed legislation that greatly restricts the ability of inmates to sue for compensation, and to ensure that in the unlikely event of a payment being made, that the victims of the offender are able to seek compensation themselves from that sum before a cent is handed over to the prisoner. That is a fair and appropriate approach.

Before this law was passed, and because the then-National government took no action to override a Court of Appeal ruling in 1994, compensation has been a possibility for inmates or anybody else who could prove a breach of their rights, however minor.

It was not fair that prisoners could seek and be paid compensation for wrongs they have suffered, when they have never made efforts to make good the harm they inflicted on their own victims. That is why the Labour-led government passed the new law. The first case has now been heard under the new law, and the judge ruled that because of the new law no compensation could be paid to the claimant. This shows the new law does work, as the Sensible Sentencing Trust has acknowledged in its recent media statement, and is an indictment on those parties that opposed the law (National, New Zealand First, and Act).

7) Reduce the age of criminal responsibility under the Crimes Act?

Reduced the age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 12 for purely indictable (i.e., serious) offences would affect only a very small number of offenders aged 12 and 13 – 102 in 2003, of whom 80 were arsonists.

There is already provision for 12-16 year-olds who have offended sexually to be placed in custody, and an intensive programme to deal with their offending. Over the age of 14, they can be dealt with in the District Court. The Family Court system provides a wide range of powers to allow 10 to 13-year-olds and their parents to be held accountable for their offending.

Labour hasn't ruled out lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 12 but on numbers and given the range of powers already available to deal with child offenders, lowering the age may not have any significant effect.

8) Victims to have TRUE input into sentencing and parole?

The Victims Rights Act, Sentencing Act, and Parole Act, all passed by the Labour-led government in 2002, have given victims for the first time ever true input into sentencing and parole.

These acts represent the first real advance in victims' rights since Labour passed the original Victims of Offences Act in 1987.

Victims’ rights, such as the right to be informed of services and remedies and of the progress of the case which concerns them, are now mandatory and enforceable through the Ombudsman, Privacy Commissioner, Police Complaints Authority and by direct approach to the agencies themselves.

New rights have been created for victims on matters such as name suppression (court must take views into account), and bail hearings (right to have their views considered, in serious cases).

The range of crimes for which victims may join the notification register to be automatically informed about matters such as parole hearings or release of offenders has been broadened.

For the first time victims are able to deliver their victim impact orally to the court before an offender is sentenced. Victims are also able to make submissions on parole and those views must be taken into account.

9) Abolish concurrent sentencing for all crimes under the Crimes Act with particular emphasis on violent and sex offenders?

Under the Sentencing Act 2002, prison sentences may be imposed concurrently or cumulatively, depending on the overall circumstances of the offending being sentenced. This situation is the same as it has always been in New Zealand and English law, and it is actually quite common for sentences to be imposed cumulatively – talk of a "bulk discount" for multiple offending is simply nonsense.

Abolishing any possibility of concurrent sentencing could lead to perverse and unjust outcomes which would risk sending entirely the wrong messages. For example, in the case of a burglar or car thief who has committed multiple offences cumulative sentences might add up to an extremely long term of imprisonment, which may exceed the sentence that would be given in a serious single-charge case such as a rape case. While multiple burglaries are serious, they are not more serious than rape.

It is also the case that multiple charges frequently arise out of one 'incident'. Again, without the possibility of concurrent sentencing a single relatively minor incident might give rise to a total cumulative sentence which is longer than the sentence for a serious matter such as rape or aggravated robbery. That would not make sense and would not be a just outcome.

Legislation needs to retain sufficient discretion for judges to sentence either cumulatively, or concurrently, or using a mix of the two approaches, depending on the circumstances of the particular case. That is what the current law allows.

10) Introduce the concept of consequences in prison, with focus to be placed on job training, education and work skills?

The concept of consequences already exists in prisons. Being sent to prison is a consequence of serious offending. While in prison, inmates may be required to take part in various rehabilitation programmes, work, training, or education programmes. It is important that we use the opportunity imprisonment gives us to try to lower the likelihood of reoffending by improving the ability of inmates to successfully rejoin law-abiding society after they are released. The Labour-led government has recently announced an increased focus on making the successful transition from prison to work.

Misbehaviour or offending while in prison will also carry consequences, such as further prosecution or disciplinary action, limitation of privileges, and might affect the likelihood of parole.