Appeals For Maximum Terms?

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31047, 30 April 1966, Page 3

Appeals For Maximum Terms?

(N.Z. Press Association) | WELLINGTON, April 29. The Minister of Justice (Mr Hanan) said today he considered penalties provided by ! the law for major sexual offences were ' adequate. But, Mr Hanan said, he could not help wondering if the Crown's right of appeal against sentences below the maximum should not now be considered—even though it had been considered unjust in the past. H e was commenting on pub-! lie criticism of the penalty! provided for the rape of! children in two recent cases! in Auckland. The victims were girls aged j six and seven and the criminals involved were sentenced: to seven years and 10 years’l imprisonment. The maximum penalty for rape under the Crimes Act. 1

11961, is 14 years’ imprisonI ment. I Mr Hanan said today that he had received a number of letters criticising the penalty for the rape of a child. “It seems to me the real criticism is against the actual sentence imposed in particular cases,” he said. i It had been pointed out in I a recent newspaper article that the Crown should appeal against sentences below the maximum, he said. “It must be pointed out that, at present, the Crown has no right of appeal against sentence. “The provision of such an appeal has, in the past, been i considered unjust—but I canInot help wondering whether lit is not a course that should ! now be considered.” I Mr Hanan said that, in 1963. I the Parliamentary Petitions ! Committee studied a petition I on the subject of the penalty for serious sexual crimes against girls under 12. “The committee referred to the fact that many people were gravely concerned that

sentences for sexual crimes often fell far .short of the ! maximum and considered that 1 what it called ‘this disturbing ; aspect of public opinion’ should be brought to the 1 notice of the courts,” said Mr 1 Hanan. 1

He said widespread publicity was given to the matter at the time of debate, and the result was that the Government decided there was no need for a formal communication to the Judiciary.