No dictation to judges

Press, 20 February 1979, Page 19

No dictation to judges

Minimum sentences are fundamentally wrong, according to the president of the Canterbury District Law Society (Mr R. L. Kerr).

Emphasising that the following opinions reflect his personal view, and not necessarily that of the law society, he adds that such sentences assume that every crime is going to be the same. In itself that is "manifestly absurd and wrong.”

"Telling a judge that he must impose a sentence of four, five, or six years, was taking away the independence of the judiciary and imposing the will of Parliament.” He concludes that Mr Brunt is seeking a return to some form of preventive detention. Yet, New Zealand had had this sentence for some offences, and had done away with it in many

cases. The sentence, which was indefinite, and could mean imprisonment for natural life, now applied only to persistent sexual offenders. If what Mr Brunt proposed was introduced, it would mean that young people who may have five, eight, or even 10 convictions for crimes involving violence would be put away for the rest of their lives—“even though experience shows that many do not reoffend after they reach their mid-twenties.”

If such a punishment was extended, problems of where these people would be kept, who would look after them, what they would do while they were closed away from the community, and whether they would ever be allowed out again, would have to be d'~Med. torn a citizen’s view,

in some cases it may be justifiable,” says Mr Kerr. However, before such a sentence was imposed there would have to be a careful psychiatric assessment of the offender and serious consideration given by the Court with discretion being left in the Court’s hands. It could not be a mandatory sentence.

On the issue of parole, Mr Kerr says that members of the Parole Board (headed by Mr Justice O’Regan), who travel round the country, spend a tremendous amount of time considering cases. Their decisions were not made lightly.

“When Mr Brunt criticises sentences imposed by Judges,.he does not appear to take into account that the Judge or magistrate is a trained lawyer, has spent many years in practice, is experienced in general matters, and has all the available facts before him. He has a pretty fair idea of what should and shouldn’t be done.” Mr Kerr said that it is

also very difficult to dra'v particular conclusions relating to Court decision* from newspaper or othci media reports, as Mr Bruni had done. These report 1 , because of the premium on space, lacked tne full fact* of the offence, the probation officer’s report, medical or psychiatric reports, and counsel’s full submissions.