*An earlier version of this story stated Ron Mansfield KC and James Carruthers represented the offenders at appeal. Neither lawyer has received Legal Aid funding for their work.
The legal aid bill for Mama Hooch rapist brothers Danny and Roberto Jaz is now more than a million dollars – and the total is likely to increase even further.
Soon after the sex offenders were sentenced in 2023, the Herald revealed they had received more than $896,000 from the country’s legal aid coffers.
Following their High Court appeal in July, the Ministry of Justice confirmed a further $130,895 had been provided to the Australian-born criminals, bringing their total legal aid bill to $1,027,412.
As of this month Danny Jaz has received $561,554.14 in legal aid and Roberto Jaz has received $465,857.63.
Ministry of Justice Legal Services Commissioner Tracey Baguley said the figures were based on invoices received to date.
“Some of the legal aid files remain open and further invoices may be received; therefore, these amounts may change,” she advised.
Baguley said the amount paid included appeal costs of $53,671.65 for Danny Jaz and $43,658.96 for Roberto Jaz.
After a trial spanning three months, Danny and Roberto Jaz were convicted of 69 charges between them, including rape, sexual violation, indecent assault, stupefying, disabling, making intimate recordings of women without their knowledge or consent and supplying illicit drugs. The offending took place at Mama Hooch and nearby Venuti – a bar and restaurant owned and run by the Jaz family in central Christchurch.
Each brother pleaded guilty to some charges and were found guilty by Judge Paul Mabey on the others.
He then sentenced Danny Jaz to 16-and-a-half years in prison for drugging and or violating 19 women.
Roberto Jaz was sentenced to 17 years behind bars for offending against eight women.
Both men were ordered to serve a minimum of half of their sentences before they are eligible for parole.
The appeal decision is yet to be released.
Last year a Mama Hooch survivor criticised the gulf in public funding for the defence compared to financial compensation and assistance for the victims.
Sophie Brown told the Herald she felt “disgusted” and “sad, quite frankly” about the amount the offenders were able to access to assist them in court.
“The fact that whatever a percentage of my money is going towards them fighting [the legal case]... is pretty disgusting,” she said.
“They’ve taken the rights of women away and now they are legally allowed to consume taxpayer money too.”
Although the victims were paid for their time when giving evidence during the trial and offered some counselling from a Christchurch sexual assault charity, Brown said for her the counselling did not work out.
“I appreciate what they [victim support] did for us when testifying for the trial, like going through booking travel and organising to come down to the court, they tried to make it as easy as possible.
“But I do feel like more should be done. Where’s that financial aid? Why shouldn’t the brothers be paying for the counselling services that they’ve put on these girls.”
At the time, victim advocate Ruth Money said while everyone was entitled to a fair defence, the bill was “absolutely obscene”.
“If only the brave victim survivors could access even 10% of it to help them with the therapy required after the offenders’ assaults.
“Victims have to wait years and years and self-fund most of their help themselves – and yet predators receive these extortionate rates of support from the state.”
Baguley said access to legal aid “is an important part of New Zealand’s justice system”.
“It ensures that people are not denied justice because they cannot pay for legal representation,” she explained.
“The purpose of the legal aid scheme is to assist those who cannot afford legal advice and assistance.”
She explained that Legal Aid Services staff had to consider “a number of factors” when deciding whether to approve funding for criminal proceedings.
“This decision includes an assessment of the applicant’s financial means against the financial eligibility thresholds,” she said.
“The thresholds for financial eligibility for legal aid are set out in the Legal Services Regulations 2011. If the applicant exceeds the thresholds, legal aid will be refused, unless it can be shown that there are special circumstances that would make a grant of legal aid appropriate.”
Baguely said some legal aid work – particularly “lower-level matters” – was paid on a fixed fee basis.
“More complex matters, such as these ones, are invoiced using actual hours at a set rate,” she said.
“In addition to payment for their work, legal aid lawyers also invoice for disbursements, which are other costs incurred in representing a legally aided person, such as travel or office costs.”
If the Jaz brothers’ current appeal is not successful, they could take the matter further to the Court of Appeal.
If an appeal is dismissed, they also have the final option of seeking leave to take their case to the Supreme Court.
Anna Leask is a senior journalist who covers national crime and justice. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 19 years with a particular focus on family and gender-based violence, child abuse, sexual violence, homicides, mental health and youth crime. She writes, hosts and produces the award-winning podcast A Moment In Crime, released monthly on nzherald.co.nz