Poor suffer under bail rules

Press, 27 February 1981, Page 13

Poor suffer under bail rules

By

DES CASEY

The call by a Christchurch judge last October for close scrutiny of sureties so that "only people of substance” would be able to stand surety was opposed by prison chaplains and other groups. A picket outside the District Court was held, the participants claiming that the poor were becoming victims of an unjust court procedure. The experience of several people recently indicates that the lines are indeed being drawn. Rita Simmonds, a skilled labourer with ten years employment experience, filed an affidavit stating that her offer to go surety for $750 was refused, despite the fact that she produced ownership papers for a van valued at $3OOO of which she is part owner. Called off the job to rush to court she believes that “my casual dress had something to do with the ..refusal.” Other affidavits have been sworn recently including that of a housewife and mother of three children who had her offer to stand surety refused twice because “my collateral did not amount to‘$1000.” Yet she owns the usual household appliances plus a car worth $5OO. Another woman, in her 60s, who owns her own home was turned down because she “didn’t have $5OO cash.” Rita • Simmonds gives many examples of people who are “put inside” simply because they and their friends are not' wealthy enough. “It is real discrimi-

nation against the less well-to-do,” she says. “They have no ’friends of substance,’ so they stay inside.” People she knows of have been kept in prison up to nine weeks (one over the Christmas period) because of this. They await trial from behind bars, she maintains, because of their own and their friends’ financial situation. “It makes a joke of our supposed justice maxim: ‘innocent until proved guilty’.”

In contrast, Ms Simmonds has discovered that people with money and influence, whose crimes sometimes far exceed the seriousness of those “without substance.” have little difficulty obtaining bail because their friends and relations are in the right places with the right amount of money. A new phrase has been coined to describe this discrimination: people are spending time in prison because they don't pass “the wealth test.” Letters to authorities have brought no- satisfaction. A Christchurch chaplain, Father Jim Consedine, has written to the Minister of Justice (Mr McLay) pointing out this “discrimination against those with little or no economic stability — that is, the poor.” He pointed out that there are also definite racist overtones. “Given the high proportion of Maori and Polynesian people who belong to economically disadvantaged backgrounds generally,” he w’rote, “and the high disproportionate

representation of both groups among those w r ho appear before our courts, the policy of the Justice Department towards the acceptance of sureties for such people remanded on bail, appears also to be distinctly racist.”

There are indications too that solo mothers have a very slim chance of being accepted as sureties. In the October call for close examination of sureties solo mothers were singled out for special attention.

Rita Simmonds believes that sureties must be abolished in order to stop this discrimination. "The courts don’t seem to have evaluated it at any depth. And it is impossible to pin down who is responsible. Mr McLay has indicated that it is a local issue. We contacted the local scene and we were told it is a political matter and therefore the responsibility of Government.”

, Even Justice Department statistics indicate that sureties are unnecessary, Rita claims. In a booklet published in-1979, research evidence showed that sureties make no difference as to whether people appear for the court hearing or not (see table).

Five Christchurch prison

chaplains, tn a letter to a Christchurch Judge, insist that the only effect sureties are having is to penalise those who are socially and economically the poorest in the community. They believe that the granting of self-bail (with reporting clauses where necessary) would suffice.

Father Consedine believes that the present situation continues because we have inherited a certain legal system and no one wants to change it. “In theory”, he says, “all people are equal before the law; in practice, because people have different economic and race positions, the law discriminates.”

“We love to punish people. New Zealand has one of the highest prison rates in the world, over 40 per cent of prison inmates being under 20, and nearly 80 per cent under 30. We presume that everyone who goes before the courts is evil and that punishment is the cure for every transgression. This mentality continues to dominate thinking on sureties. If a person fails to appear in court we pounce on their friends and exact $lOOO from an innocent person because a friend, relative or acquaintance failed to turn up. And

we rationalise this because, against all evidence, we insist that a surety ensures appearance. The Justice Department itself knows it is not like this.”

Rita Simmonds points out that many who do not turn up at court fail to do so, not because of malice or with intent to break the law; many simply forget, she says. Their days are not structured according to the clock as with many other people. Besides, many have been victims of unfairness and discrimination for a long time. "They have been refused employment time and time again; they are alienated; they are often very young. Anyway, why should they put themselves out for the court when everywhere they have turned they have been kicked around?” ■ She believes that there is a direct relationship between high unemployment and what the courts . define as crime. She gives the case of “John,” a 16-year-old who could not get a job, and with whom she spent hours trying to persuade him to go on the dole. He refused because he had had it drummed into him that the dole was bludging. “Many people don’t realise how deep this feeling is in many young people. “They have failed to get work; they begin to think they are failures, but they have enough pride to say ‘no’ to a hand-out.” Two days after Rita's attempt to talk

“John” into accepting the dole, two detectives contacted her looking for his belongings. He had been arrested for house-breaking. |

Rita Simmonds is convinced that many young people are caught in this trap. From the moment they leave school they have had no security — no job, no economic " independence, and a growing absence of sense of worth. Charges of burglary and assault, she believes, are often just another link in a chain of frustration and growing anger that begins with unemployment and a society that, in interpreting unemployment as the fault of the unemployed, takes no steps to help the victims find a slot. "The last straw in this humiliating sequence of events,” she says, "is to await trial from behind bars because one’s friends and relatives are judged inferior enough on the economic scale not to be trusted as surety. “Unless the courts take this sort of situation into consideration and make the required changes the problem will deteriorate. The courtSj judges, and the entire Justice Department must change the legislation and correct their understanding of what is just. A good place to begin would be to elimi-. nate sureties and replace .them with self-bail arid reporting clauses where necessary.”

“Remand and Bail decisions in a Magistrate’s Court,” Justice Department Research Own recognisance Own recognisance Own recognisance and Own recognisance, and surety Probation Report Surety and P. Report

No No . r r • No ■ No % Appear 365 93.6. 60 93.8 121 93.1 37 94.9 Not appear 25 6.4 4 6.3 9 6;9 2 5.1 390 100 64 100 130 100 . 39 100