By TONY STICKLEY
Rapists and other serious criminals are likely to serve less jail time under laws that come into force next week.
While the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act are designed to make sure that the country's nastiest offenders serve longer terms, those in the middle may end up serving shorter sentences.
The changes have been described as a "sham" by Louise Parsons of the action group Sensible Sentencing, who said many offenders would be let off more lightly.
But Justice Minister Phil Goff defends the changes, saying the hardest of violent criminals will face longer sentences, and it will be harder to get parole.
The wide-ranging legislation, which comes into force on Monday, was a response to the last election's referendum when 92 per cent of voters said they wanted tougher sentencing.
"Really we are worse off than we were before the bill came in ... " Louise Parsons said.
"The thing that concerns us is that the way this is being spun by the politicians is that they have given the voters what they have asked for, but in fact it is all a big spin."
So wide-ranging are the changes that judges have been in seminars trying to grapple with how to interpret and administer the new laws.
The legislation says heavy-duty criminals whose offending is in the worst category or near to it should get the maximum or near-maximum sentence.
For example, a bad rape might be one where there were multiple offenders who abducted a young girl or woman from her home and committed various degrading acts.
But those in the middle range of serious violent offences, including many rapes and aggravated robberies, look likely to benefit because these offenders can apply for parole after serving only a third of their sentence - rather than the present automatic release after two-thirds.
The Crown can ask for minimum non-parole periods of up to two-thirds of a sentence but only in cases considered out of the ordinary - which would not apply to most of moderately serious crimes.
"I imagine the public will be outraged," said one senior Auckland barrister, who did not want to be named. "The worst offenders will get more and your average offenders less."
Prominent Auckland defence lawyer Steve Cullen said the Government might have inadvertently loosened the existing tough sentencing regime for serious crime.
"Although it is supposed to be a toughening-up, there is contained within it quite a softening in certain areas," he said, referring to the ability to apply for parole after one-third of the sentence.
Assessing the new legislation in the lawyers' magazine Law Talk, Geoff Hall, associate professor of law at Otago, asked: "A Government measure tough on crime? In election year, you would think so, but in reality, no.
"The act is [weakened] by the provision made for eligibility for release on parole after one-third ... "
Mr Goff defended the changes saying it would only affect 10 per cent of the prison population. Since 1993 most prisoners could be paroled after one-third of the sentence and only prisoners more likely to re-offend, based on their crime, had to wait for two-thirds.
Mr Goff said research showed rehabilitation was not dependent on the crime and the act was cleaning up a gap.
He said the law gave more safeguards, would create more prisoners and cost an extra $90 million in three years.
The judge could impose a minimum non-parole period of two-thirds and that did not mean offenders would get it after two-thirds. And under the new professional parole regime for the first time the paramount consideration would be whether the person posed a risk to society.
"There will be tougher sentences for the worst offenders and those who constitute a risk will not be able to get parole.
"For the first time the parole board has a clear direction. The risk to society is the paramount consideration."
Another change is the abolition of suspended sentences, which has resulted in a rush of lawyers trying to get clients given this penalty before the weekend deadline.
Home invasion provisions have been dropped, although an offence involving entry into a dwelling is to be regarded as an aggravating feature. Hate crimes motivated by factors such as race, gender, and colour are other aggravating features.
The worst murders will attract a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of up to 17 years, but in cases with mitigating circumstances sentences could be less than the present 10-year non-parole period.
SENTENCING CHANGES
* Worst criminals get close to maximum sentence.
* Others eligible for parole after one-third of sentence, instead of two-thirds automatic release.
* Home invasion provisions scrapped.
* Suspended sentences abolished.
* Periodic detention and community service replaced by community work.
* Worst murderers get minimum 17 years.
* Some murderers get less than 10 years.
* More emphasis on restorative justice.
Tougher time for worst of crimes
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.