Govt ignored 'home invasion' advice

By John Armstrong

political editor

The cabinet ignored officials and pressed ahead with a "home invasion" law, despite firm advice that the existing law is adequate and that making maximum prison sentences even longer will not deter offenders.

"There is scope within the existing penalty levels for judges to increase the sentences imposed for this sort of offending," Ministry of Justice officials noted in a cabinet paper written in January.

The home invasion legislation, introduced into Parliament the following month, will again be the subject of intense debate this week, after its return to the House from a select committee.

The officials questioned if toughening already high maximum penalties would prove any more successful in deterring home invasion-style crimes.

"Research evidence would suggest that penalty levels do not generally deter offending, but rather it is other factors such as the risk of apprehension."

They also warned that tougher penalties could boost prison running costs by between $4 million and $7 million. The likely imposition of higher penalties would also mean longer trials, bringing more court delays and legal aid payments.

The cabinet paper was one of several finally released yesterday by the Minister of Justice, Tony Ryall, after a request and subsequent appeal under the Official Information Act by the New Zealand Herald.

Mr Ryall, who initially refused to release the documents, said yesterday that he had delayed their release because he had not wanted public servants brought into a political debate.

His Crimes (Home Invasion) Amendment Bill increases maximum sentences for cases where offenders have intentionally attacked people in their homes. For example, the new maximum for "home-invasion aggravated robbery" is 19 years, rather than 14.

The bill was drafted by the National-led minority Government in the wake of the high-profile killing of Beverly Bouma in Reporoa during a string of home invasions late last year.

But in reports to Mr Ryall and his predecessor, Sir Douglas Graham, the Ministry of Justice said those incidents did not amount to a new crime but had simply been relabelled by the media.

"There are a wide range of existing offences that cover these incidents with high maximum penalties.

"Although there have been some recent horrible crimes in occupied houses, it is not possible to state whether there is any growing trend.

"The offenders in most of these cases have been caught and charged with a variety of serious crimes.

Officials, however, agreed that doing nothing would not address public concerns about the "violation" of the home. But they warned it was undesirable to draw distinctions between violence during a house burglary and one at a shop or motel.

Mr Ryall said ministers believed legislation was essential to reflect the importance New Zealanders placed on the home as a sanctuary and to signal that to judges.

"We see higher penalties also offering preventive and punitive factors. If it deters one person from bashing someone in their home, it will have worked."

But Labour's justice spokesman, Phil Goff, said the legislation had serious anomalies.

Labour would have amended the Criminal Justice Act so that judges could regard an attack on the sanctity of the home as a "serious aggravating factor" when it came to sentencing.