Law change editorial challenged by Minister

Press, 16 August 1985, Page 16

Law change editorial challenged by Minister

The Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, has taken issue with a leading article printed in “The Press” on August 14, on law, order, and the Criminal Justice Bill then before Parliament. The editorial, he said, gave a “simplistic and misleading analysis” of the probable effects of the bill, which has now been passed by parliament. In a letter to the editor of “The Press,” Mr Palmer wrote: “ ‘The Press’ says the principle that a person who commits a property offence should be given a non-custodial sentence and that a person who commits a significantly violent offence should go to prison, is wrong. It is thought to be wrong, apparently because it removes the sanction of imprisonment now capable of protecting the rights of property. It will be, according to ‘The Press,’ a ‘charter’ for the activities of ‘petty thieves, fences, con-men and women.’ “To make credible this distorted analysis, ‘The Press’ has had to make numerous unwarranted assumptions. First, it assumes that a substantial proportion of property offenders are imprisoned and that this gives the present level of public protection. However, while in real numbers the percentage of property offenders in prison is too high as a percentage of total court dispositions, only approximately 16 per cent of those convicted of property offences go to prison. “Second, it is assumed that under the new policy offenders against property will be imprisoned only in circumstances. It is too early: and perhaps inappropriate to

predict what effect the judiciary might give to clause 6 of the bill, but whatever that might be, it would have been preferable to read and understand that clause before describing its likely effect. Had that been done, it would have been noted that the policy applied only to property offences punishable by a term of imprisonment of seven years or less, and could hardly foreshadow a more ‘liberal’ attitude to burglars, because that offence is punishable by 10 years imprisonment. The policy does not apply to cases where it would be clearly inadequate or inappropriate. Had that been pointed out the effect of the provision could have been accurately weighed by your readers.

“The Government as you know is committed to reducing the internal deficit. The Justice Vote is not and will not be a bottomless pit from which millions may be drawn to build new prisons. “My resources for prisons are finite and as long as I am Minister of Justice I intend to ensure that those resources are used to protect the public from violent crime. I make no apology for that. “You also question the ability of a court to enforce a sentence of reparation. This country’s courts collect usually in excess of 90 per cent of fines imposed and I intend that they will be even more effective in respect of sentences of reparation. Your implied assertion that the sentence will also be ineffective because the offender’s means must be taken into account in setting a sum is also questjpn-

able. Is it contended that a sum should be assessed that is known to be beyond the offender’s means?

“Lastly, in answer to your comments against allowing submissions to be made on the question of sentence by a person able to assist the court on the ethnic or cultural background of an offender, I raise your own point. If Maori offenders form a disproportionately large element in the New Zealand prison population, are not entitled to take steps to do something about the fact? All the bill does is give the Maori (and I add any other offender with ethnic or cultural antecedents in his offending) defendant an opportunity to have special factors on the question of the appropriate sanction put before a Judge. Moreover, the cultural or ethnic background must in part be linked to the offence and be relevant to the proposed sanction. That is a far cry from allowing a sentence to be weighted on grounds of ‘race’ alone.

“It is a relatively simple matter to criticise policy initiatives in this difficult and sensitive area. The proposals that you attack have been in this bill and its predecessor since 1983. Your help on an alternative solution was less than obvious.” Mr Palmer said.

[The distinction between offences punishable by up to seven years imprisonment and those carrying longer possible terms, to which Mr Palmer attaches some weight, was observed carefully in the editorial.—Ed.]