New deal for victims in Minister McLay’s four-point plan
A new deal for victims if crimes, and attempts to make legal proceedings more easily understood, are among the changes envisaged by Mr Jim McLay, New Zealand's Attorney General and Minister of Justice. He has already drawn up a four-point plan intended to improve the courts system, continue improvements in the criminal justice system, improve the law itself, and ensure that the Justice Department can cope efficiently with its diverse tasks. He avoids specific details at this stage. They, wili come later. However, he assured people in his Birkenhead electorate last month that the planning during his holidays was infinitely more productive than his fishing. He is eager to see a change of emphasis in the justice system whereby victims of crimes will be compensated in some way by the offender. "I think it will make the ‘punishment’ more relevant to the actual offence the person Has committed.” The proposal is part of a general trend, both here and overseas, to give more attention to the plight of the victim. Difficulties in ordering compensation in the past related more to enforcing the sentence than to the laws.
Public resentment about sentences being imposed
was part of the reason behind the proposal to improve, tighten, and expand the provisions relating to reparation and restitution, he says.
The proposed community service sentence may be linked to the area of compensation. It would be similar to community work. However, the new sentence would formalise the existing penalty, would provide for supervision and enable much wider use. It was intended to give courts the power to bring the offender back if he did not fulfil the terms vf the order.
Mr I'i'cl.ay opposes minimum fentences for particular crimes. These are
not practical, he says, be cause they work injustices. When magistrates or judges adopt methods to circumvent the law in the interests of justice, the law can be held in dis repute. “It is far better to leave descretion in th< hands of the magistrates and judges.” Although New Zealand has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world, the possibility of a lengthy term imprisonment must always exist for certain types of crime — particularly those involving violence and drugs, he adds. However, imprisonment was inappropriate for some offenders. Asked why heavier sentences were being incorporated in new laws when earlier maximum penalties were not used, Mr McLay replied that this was one of the few ways the legislature has of telling the Courts that heavier sentences should be imposed. “It’s the perfectly proper way of doing it. We cannot tell Courts that a certain person should be given a longer sentence.” When people were dealt with by lawyers and the Courts, too many people did not know what was going on. “We use jargon far too much.” Did anybody really know what a subpoena duces tecum, or
a property note to issue, meant?
The wording of charges was another example. Although the old wording has a nice “ring,” a lay person may feel confused, disadvantaged, and even
the victim of a major injustice because he cannot understand what is being said. "We’ve got to consciously go out and make certain that when we talk of legal matters to the general public, and even among ourselves, we should use language that is generally understood.” Laws themselves must be precise and comprehensible. There is a
need to get away from the belief that the best way to
deal with an evil was to pass a law about it. Though the law needed to be reformed, good law reform often entailed less rather than more legislation.
Mr McLay hopes to involve lay people in improving the law and to ensure that the public is aware of proposals before they are considered by Parliament.
Law-makers must be aware of fundamental changes in public opinion, and it was vital that they appreciate the mechanics of change, he said in his maiden Parliamentary speech. He makes an effort to sample opinions in his electorate on major issues, such as abortion and reducing the drinking age.
Mr McLay also believes there is a need to know more about how laws are working. He keeps a close eye on rape legislation that restricts questioning on the complainant’s sexual history, which he shepherded through Parliament and which came into force in 1977. He has no further legislation planned
in this area at present. He recently made a statement about how written depositions procedures used in the Magistrates Court were being underutilised. "One would like to think that lawyers were making a much more careful assessment of the situation now they can use the alternative procedure."
Cries of rushed legislation are often unfounded, he says. Because dozens of bills were channelled through Parliament for their third reading before the last sitting of Parliament, did not mean they were hurried through. “Most bills have been around for some time and have gone through the processes for detailed consideration. There is verv little legislation that gets introduced on one day and passed the next."
He would like to see more women involved in the administration of justice. This was likely in the future because more women were going through law school and into legal practices. Some at least are going to be available for consideration for judicial appointments, he says. Mr McLay believes that the adversary system used in the courts, is still the best system. "Ultimately, when there are two different versions of some matter, the only way you can decide which version is correct is to get all persons who saw it together, pledge them to tell the truth, have the version tested by probing questioning, and then for an independent person to decide the truth.” Now, otte of his tasks is to sift through 250 recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Courts, and to decide which are practicable and their order of priority.
“What I want to see is an improvement in our criminal justice system, an improvement in our court system, and good law reform. I hope there would flow from these things a greater respect for our system of justice."
Log in