Crime statistics indictment of leaders and community?
The public has lost all confidence in the Bench while many offenders treat the courts as a laughing stock, says Mr Sandy Brunt, who initiated the Lions Club ‘‘SpeakUp" campaign.
The author of many submissions on violent offending, he has often spoken out himself on mushrooming crime rates and the sentences which he claims are inconsistent.
As a result of the “Speak-Up” campaign, he says, “many of our citizens showed a willingness to co-operate with the police. It is certainly no encouragement to responsible members of the public when gross inconsistencies emanate from the Bench.”
In a statement to “The Press,” Mr Brunt says that there was common ground on one issue in the policies of both major political parties in the last general election. “Both promised a tough line and harsher penalties for the violent offender, but my information, is that existing penalties are adequate — if they are imple-
mented. “Crime statistics over the decade 1967/1977 are not only an indictment of our political leadership, but also of a community which has tolerated, virtually without protest, an over-all increase of 79.7
per cent in the reported crime rate. “In that period drug offences were up by 780 per cent, offences against the person by “6.2 per cent, and offences against public order by 7 50.6 per cent. The forecast for 1981, five years from the time of the report, is for a 22.2 per cent increase, but already in this year alone drug offences and violent offending have overtaken last year’s totals. To emphasise the point — the overall increase in the last 10 years is 107,974 and will increase by a further 53.985 by 1981. “Present indications are that the total figure for 1981 will be well over 300.000. Apart from Parliamentary indifference and public apathy, the bench must accept a share of the blame for what is probably an irreversible situation. Parliament can introduce the toughest measures . ever, and they, will be a waste of time if the courts are not prepared to back the legislation.” Mr Brunt puts forward the following examples to illustrate his argument: 1. At a time when 14 years imprisonment. was the maximum penalty for drug trafficking, a man and woman were caught taking heroin into Paparua Prison. The penalty — one and two year’s probation
respectively. “Probation, for heroin; almost unbelievable.” 2. Murder was the thirty-fifth conviction involving violence for a man with a total of 95 offences. “I, and many others, would be hard to convince that some members of the bench had not failed in their duty over 16 or so years of his offending. Nor is the case unique. Twenty or more convictions, frequently with a high percentage of vio-
lence, are common place. It was my recommendation to the Select Committee on violent offending that any person with five or more convictions for this type of offence be put away for a long time.
“Had such a system applied in the example given, 29 people would not have been assaulted, a marriage may not have broken up, a woman would not have been injured, a man would not have been murdered, and numerous lesser offences would not have been committed. I am all for rehabilitation where possible, but how many chances should such people be given? “By the time a person has five convictions, he will almost certainly have been given probation, fines, periodic detention, Borstal, or jail. If the penny hasn’t dropped by that time, I suggest that it never will.” 3. A report in “The Press” of December 13 refered to a reduction on appeal from 12 to six years imprisonment for conviction on charges of rape and wounding a 41-year-old Hamilton woman. The penalty was reduced, apparently in the interest of reasonably uniform penalties. “Whilst conceding that circumstances vary from case to case, and that mi-
tigation sometimes justifies leniency, there is nothing in the published report to suggest that such circumstances existed in this case. It was a most brutal offence, but as the circumstances are described, the offender had ample time to reconsider the implications of his actions.
“It seems to have altogether escaped the notice of the court that a victim was also involved. A 41-year-old. woman was abducted at knife point, wounded and raped, and .she will possibly never fully recover from the experience.
“I find it extraordinary that judicial opinion should be as much as 50 per cent at variance in a single case, and it seems to me that the verdict of the appeal court is, to all intents and purposes, a vote of no confidence in the judge who imposed the original sentence. “But which was right? Since the integrity of the bench is beyond dispute, both believed they were. But the variation! it seems then that no offender is dealing with the law but with judicial opinion, which varies like the winds, and how just is that?
“No wonder some offenders are bitter, or that a large proportion of police resignations are due to
disillusionment with the inconsistencies of the courts. But a further issue is involved. Using the judgment as a precedent, almost any offender can appeal on the grounds that he has been too harshly treated in relation to the penalty meted out to someone else in exactly similar circumstances. And his appeal must have some chance of success if the law is to be consistent.
“It is, or is supposed to be, a cornerstone of our system that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. An admirable concept, but one which in this, and countless other instances, no longer has meaning. “There was a time when our courts enjoyed and deserved the respect of- all citizens, the law abiding and criminal element alike. Alas, the public has lost all confidence, and to many offenders, the courts are a laughing stock. “I would be very reluctant to see the traditional discretionary powers of the bench restricted, but where violent crime is concerned it seems that there is no alternative to mandatory minimum sentences. Such a step would ensure a minimum consistency with penalties, and that the intention of legislation is carried out."
Log in