Lawyers say a series of Government law changes and its "get tough on crime" mantra are to blame for the surge in the prison population which it now wants to reverse.
The Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association yesterday welcomed Government moves to initiate a review of prisoner numbers
with the intent of reducing them, possibly by as much as 30 per cent.
But spokesmen for the groups said sentencing, parole and bail law changes instigated in 2000 and 2002 were largely responsible for the jump.
The Government yesterday went on the defensive about those legislative changes, maintaining they had delivered the tougher sentencing the public said it wanted in a 1999 referendum.
Former Justice Minister Phil Goff, who changed the laws, and other ministers denied the Government had changed its tone.
They also rejected suggestions that the reforms had been too harsh on the lower-level offenders who Corrections Minister Damien O'Connor now says should perhaps not be in jail.
When the sentencing and parole acts were introduced in 2002 the Government predicted an increase of 400 inmates in the prison population, then sitting at about 5700, over four years.
The figure has soared to 7525.
But despite appearing to deny responsibility, Mr Goff conceded the laws might require some fixing.
"The legislation will be sustained by and large in the form that it has been put through."
Cabinet ministers also hinted that the Government believed judges might have misinterpreted the intent of the new laws.
Mr O'Connor said: "The judges' ... interpretation of the law and, I think, of public opinion means we've seen a reduction in the ability of people to apply for home detention, perhaps on the basis of higher sentences being laid down and less people able to apply."
Prime Minister Helen Clark said she thought there had been "a bit of a sentencing creep, which has ended up with those who arguably could have been dealt with in other ways, being dealt with in prison and for longer terms".
Asked if this "sentencing creep" was the fault of the legislation or the judges, she said: "Well, I'm not of course going to attribute any blame to judges, that would be quite improper.
"It may be that the climate of the times has led to what was an intention to deal with the worst offenders more harshly, then moving on to other areas."
Auckland District Law Society president Gary Gotlieb said he believed judges had had a "knee-jerk" sentencing reaction to hardened public sentiment stemming from the referendum.
But the convener of the Law Society's criminal law committee, Philip Morgan, said: "I'm irritated at any suggestion this is the fault of the judiciary. I think it's a combination of the legislation passed by this Government."
The ditching of suspended sentences, a tightening of bail eligibility and home detention changes had increased prison numbers, he said.
The muster debate was cyclical, with politicians cracking down on crime for votes and then back-pedalling when they realised simply locking more people up didn't work, he said.
Criminal Bar Association president Peter Winter agreed that the law changes were responsible.
He highlighted the removal of suspended sentencing and the requirement for offenders to be placed in jail while seeking home detention.
"And there has been a clear indication that sentences should be increased."
Chief District Court Judge Russell Johnson said judges were not under political or public pressure to give lower-level offenders harsher sentences.
"It may be that there is a perception out there that judges have reacted to public sentiment which was very strong three years ago.
"I really couldn't comment on that, but we certainly don't feel that we have."
It was "not at all" the case that judges felt more restricted in imposing community sentences as a result of the legislation.
Pay just
per week ongoing
Pay just
per year ongoing
30
