Minister rejects editorial

Press, 27 July 1987, Page 12

Minister rejects editorial

The Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, has criticised an editorial in “The Press” on the nonpayment of fines, describing one statement in it as “totally misleading.” In a letter to the Editor, the Minister writes:

“I cannot allow your editorial of July 21, “Making an ass of the law” which, commenting on the Auditor-General’s report on the Justice Department, hints at creative accounting on the part of the department and urges simplistic solutions to the recognised complex problem of fines collection, to go unanswered.

“Your comment that ‘less than $1 in every $2O imposed by the courts as fines actually gets paid’ is totally misleading. I assume your arrive at this observation by subtracting the Auditor-General’s figure of outstanding fines, $39.9 million from last year’s fines imposed of $42.1 million. “My department’s annual report to the House of Representatives quite clearly shows that payments totalling $31.6 million were received by courts throughout the country during 1986. “I seriously doubt that people paying that amount are, as you suggested, "treating the penalties, and the courts, as a joke.” The outstanding fines figure reported by the department shows the value of current ledgers held by courts. These include fines for which payments are not yet due, those where the defendant has made arrangements for time to pay and others on which enforcement action has been taken, but not yet resolved. “Included also are orders for

reparation where the trial judge has ordered a defendant to repay a considerable amount to a complainant, but has allowed the repayments to be spread over a period. Many of these payments could be spread over a number of years. "The additional figure of $16.3 million reported by the AuditorGeneral represents the value of warrants to arrest issued by the court where the police have reported they are unable to locate the defendant.

“The figures reported to the House of Representatives are not a balance sheet, but rather a reconciliation of transactions undertaken during a calendar year. A perusal of the department’s reports over the last four years will show that both figures quoted do not result from only one year’s transactions. The $16.3 million includes warrants dating back to at least 1977 while the outstanding fines of $23.6 million includes fines imposed in earlier years.

“To suggest, as you have done, that the $39.9 million outstanding is lost to the department is totally without foundation. As I have already indicated, $23.6 million is still current and a good proportion is not yet overdue.

‘You quite accurately point out that steps have been taken by this Government to assist courts to collect fines. We differ, however, on our perception of the effect of the changes. “My department recognised that the existing sanctions were cumbersome and in 1984 undertook a study of fines enforce-

ment both in New Zealand and overseas. A working party made recommendations to me last year and a number of those have been implemented that will take effect from November 1.

“This legislation provides a variety of sanctions and in streamlining procedures will allow for more speedy and effective enforcement. “To further assist courts in the collection of fines the first stage of a fully comprehensive accounting and enforcement system will become operational late this year. This will replace a manual system and will provide many benefits. Not the least of these will be the automatic generation of enforcement procedures and the ability to quickly identify any failure to meet arrangements regarding payment. In short, this system will result in speedier and, therefore, more effective enforcement of fines.

“In a democratic society such as ours, it is essential, for the judicial system to be effective, that any sentence imposed is enforced. Let me say that this Government has no intention of avoiding its responsibility in the area of fines. This is clearly demonstrated by the measures I have outlined.

“The suggestion that the enforcement of judicial orders be transferred to some other agency is ill-founded. The statute provides that this is the function and responsibility of officers of the court and I will do my utmost to ensure they have both the legislation and the systems required to achieve this.”