Concern about crime unable to be ignored

Press, 6 October 1987, Page 4

Concern about crime unable to be ignored

By

CHRISTOPHER MOORE

New Zealand courts could not ignore rising public concern about violent crime, a judge of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Casey, told the Law Conference yesterday

While the threat of imprisonment could deter individuals, especially in cases of premeditated crime, its efficacy was “usually overrated,” said Mr Justice Casey. “The fear of getting caught is probably what really counts. But there are many crimes in which the offender acts on the spur of the moment and gives no thought to detention or punishment.” For decades, legislators had reached out for the first piece of legislation they could devise to meet actual or apprehended criminal problems.

“I do not intend any disrespect by commenting that the recent flood of penal legislation accords with that general pattern. In my belief that much of it will achieve little or nothing in coping with the perceived upsurge of crime. That will only be changed by social conditions and attitudes,” he said.

“In general terms it can be said that since 1960 the

New Zealand courts were developing a policy of reserving prison as a last resort for the non-violent offending and, unless public safety required otherwise, keeping the term as short as possible.” One of the Penal Policy Committee’s recommendations was for a review of the maximum sentences in the Crimes Act There were early indications that this might be done. It was now clear that this was a barren hope. Even by 1985, the philosophy in the Criminal Justice t Act had been overtaken by

events. The increase of violent offending had caused a punitive or “just deserts" view of sentencing in New Zealand courts. Long-term imprisonment was believed by many New Zealanders to be an effective deterrent capable of containing the upsurge of cases. Meanwhile, the courts

and legislators were frequently criticised for leni-

ency. "The Roper Report while fully supporting judicial independence referred to the major public

concern about the inadequacy of sentences. As an indication of the hardening attitudes in the community, I detect no suggestion in that report of conciliation between offender and victim as an alternative to punitive

sentencing,” Mr Justice Casey said. “The courts do not operate in a vacuum and it would be impossible for judges to remain unaware of this growing concern expressed in so many ways.

“Ultimately the benchmarks for sentencing in serious crime are set by the Court of Appeal. Each decided case will have its own mitigating or aggravating factors. It is noteworthy that during the last two years the Solici-tor-General has exercised his right to appeal more often than in the past against what were thought

to be inadequate sen-

tences in violent crime which includes rape and other offences of sexual violation.”

The court relied on the step-by-step logic of precedent In the absence of clear legislative directions, any sudden departure from present sentencing patterns was unlikely, Mr Justice Casey said.

“However, this does not preclude a response to public expectations about the treatment of violent crime, nor is it likely that the courts will overlook the clear message from Parliament in the stream of amendments

giving effect to the harder line recommended in parts of the Roper Report. “But in all this, they must never lose sight of the courts’ fundamental obligation to administer justice even-handedly, unswayed by any emotion save that of mercy when the guidelines demand it”