Anti-expert rhetoric needs to stop or we all suffer from the consequences – Editorial

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith's interview on a television current affairs show illustrates the Government's ongoing frustration with the judiciary. Photo / Michael Craig

Editorial

THE FACTS

• Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith suggests the Government might introduce more mandatory sentences for crimes.
• Recent changes cap sentencing discounts judges can apply at 40%, with exceptions for “manifestly unjust” cases.
• Goldsmith’s comments reflect ongoing tension between the Government and the judiciary over sentencing discretion.

Is the Government considering riding roughshod over the independence of our judges?

Well, maybe.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says there is a “possibility” this Government could introduce more minimum or mandatory sentences for crimes, effectively taking the ball out of our judges’ courts.

Lawmakers have traditionally set maximum sentences rather than mandatory sentences, allowing judges the discretion to take into account both the aggravating or mitigating circumstances that are specific to the individual case.

Late last month, Government changes came into effect capping the sentence discounts that judges can apply in most cases at 40%. However, if a judge thought this sentence would be “manifestly unjust”, they could still exceed this discount cap.

Yesterday, on TVNZ’s Q+A, Goldsmith said judges had handed down “significant discounts”. It appears this is an ongoing frustration of this Government against the judiciary.

It also echoes some of the comments made by garden-variety Kiwis on every court story the Herald publishes. “Throw the book at them” and “they should get the max” are some of the regular outcries.

This, of course, is born from both emotion and ignorance.

Goldsmith, however, is well-informed and knows better. His comments also came after he had a good week, announcing practical and common-sense policy to help protect businesses from retail crime.

While his political opponents looked like the ones out of touch and anti-authority, now it is Goldsmith who is tapping into this territory.

When it comes to specific sentencing decisions, it is judges who are the people who are best-placed to make these calls, not an MP in Wellington shooting whichever way the political wind is blowing.

Judges know the particulars of an individual case and are experts in their field at applying the law to real-world examples. Politicians and their advisors are working in a theory bubble. Often, their motivations appear so transparent that you can see the efforts to garner more votes or stabilise the support they already have.

This, of course, has always been politics. It can be a dirty game. But this is also the increasing type of anti-expert rhetoric we’ve seen too often on both sides of the House lately.

When your pipes are leaking through the walls of your house, is it more prudent to take the advice of a master plumber – or your husband, who struggles to unblock a sink?

This desire for quick political capital comes at the expense of the public’s trust in our democratic institutions, including both Parliament and the judiciary. Ultimately, we all lose from this short-sighted approach and are eventually left to clean up the mess when the walls fill with water.

An example of this is the Three Strikes regime, the Act Party policy introduced under Sir John Key’s National Government, repealed under Labour, and then re-introduced by the coalition this term.

Experts warned it would be a daft idea from the beginning, but we gave it a crack anyway. Then the evidence confirmed what the experts said. Supporters of the regime will, of course, now say Three Strikes part deux is bigger and better than ever and we need to persist with it.

It should be noted, however, that the experts’ views remain unchanged.

Sign up to the Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.