Discrimination over criminal record may be illegal

Press, 20 December 1985, Page 3

Discrimination over criminal record may be illegal

PA Wellington The Government is thinking of making it unlawful to discriminate against people because they have a criminal record. The problem of living down a criminal record was often a form of punishment that had an effect on the lives of otherwise law-abid-ing people far beyond the original sentence, said the Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, yesterday. Releasing a Justice Department discussion paper, he said he was often asked for help by people facing problems because of an old criminal record.

“Almost without exception they are not hardened criminals, but people who, subsequent to what is a minor offence, have become law-abiding citizens,” he said.

New Zealand’s laws did not provide a remedy for the problem, Mr Palmer said.

The discussion paper proposes that criminal record discrimination should be unlawful in any area covered by the Human Rights Commission Act — unless there is a direct relationship between the conviction and that particular area. Areas covered by the act include employment, access to land, housing, accommodation, education; access and use of public facilities and services; and the provision of goods and services.

The rule would apply from the date of release from custody or from the date of conviction for noncustodial sentences.

The paper also proposes that after an appropriate rehabilitation period, it should be against the law to publish details of, or ask questions or require information about, a person’s criminal convictions. A breach of that bar would be a criminal offence.

The paper says the reha-

bilitation period should be the same for all offenders, regardless of the offence or length of sentence imposed. “Alternatively a two-tier system might be adopted with a longer rehabilitation period for offenders sentenced to more than two years imprisonment,” it said.

The paper proposes that the rehabilitation period should be five years for protection from re-publica-tion and 10 years for complete protection from discrimination, although that could be varied depending on the length of sentence. The paper • says there should be a right in exceptional circumstances to apply to the High Court for dispensation from the restrictions on publication or discrimination, given factors such as national security. The paper says the retention of conviction data on the Wanganui computer

should be the same as the rehabilitation period set for complete protection from discrimination — although serious offences such as murder, rape and armed robbery with a maximum penalty of more than 10 years might be an exception. The paper said the penalty of having a criminal record at present lasted a person’s whole life. “It may mean the loss of a job and create severe difficulties in finding employment in the future. “There is also the negative effect that having a criminal record may have on the attitudes of family, and friends ... the criminal record may be raked up again many years later,” the paper said. Submissions on the discussion paper will be received by the Justice Department up to March 10 next year.