In the spotlight today
Dunne address to Sensible Sentencing Trust – 2008-04-19
I particularly want to acknowledge the work of Garth and the Trust, not just in the last year but over the period of years since its establishment, and the contribution you have made and continue to make to the ongoing debate about law and order, especially the role and the rights of victims in New Zealand. I think that advances that have been made – and we could always argue that there should be more – in promoting the rights of victims have come directly as a consequence of the advocacy of this organisation. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that the title of today’s conference is “Advancing Victims Rights.”
What I want to do in the time available to me is on three key issues: victims; sentencing and prison related policy: and, early intervention and the promotion of safer communities. I will do so in the context of UnitedFuture’s approach to these matters, bearing in mind that our full policy has yet to be completely finalised and released.
The starting point is to recognise that any approach to reducing the impact of crime in our community has to be on two levels – we have to be tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime. The two go hand in hand, and sadly, over too many years, we have often tended to emphasise one at the expense of the other. We have seldom proceeded equally down both tracks and that is a focus I want to underpin the remarks I am going to make this morning.
I also want to underscore the fact that victims are an important part of the equation. I know it sounds a little trite and obvious to say it, but it is something we need to constantly to remind ourselves of. The offender and the person who is offended against are one part of the equation, but, particularly in the case of violent crimes and murders, the families and those who are widely affected by the consequence of that offending are an important part of the equation as well, and sometimes we do not give them the heed that we ought to. In that regard, I want to comment on a remark made yesterday by Victim Support. I want to indicate very strongly our support for the commitment expressed in the “Commitment to Parallel Justice” document of the need to make sure that while we may well advance issues around restorative justice we also recognise the responsibilities we have towards the rights of victims. So there is a parallel model to be advanced, but we need to move at equal speed on both.
As far as UnitedFuture’s policy is concerned, we fully support the implementation of full victim restoration programmes for non-violent crimes to ensure that offenders and their families do compensate victims for their losses, and that they do face up to the people that they have hurt. Whether or not it is a $5 million scheme seems to me to be irrelevant. The important point is that we recognise the responsibility and we start to work towards its achievement. We equally have to ensure that offenders complete any requirements put upon them under restorative justice contracts, and that those offenders’ victims are constantly kept informed of the progress of that offender’s track, if that is what they wish.
We believe very strongly that a primary focus of the Courts has to be to make the welfare and the safety of victims, their families and the public paramount when considering bail applications. We would move to recover reparations to victims through a restitution order at sentencing that would automatically deduct at least 10% of an offender’s ongoing earnings towards restoration and compensation to their victims.
The Parole Board receives a lot of attention and criticism. As far as we are concerned, it is important that the Parole Board be required to consider the impact on victims and the community when it considers any conditions it places on parolees, for instance, restrictions on where they can work, where they can be located. That is a statement that is often made as being desirable, but I doubt, as you do, the extent to which it is being achieved in practice. There needs to be far more scrutiny of the way in which the Parole Board operates, particularly when making decisions regarding violent offenders are concerned. There needs to be much greater opportunity for the plaints of victims to be heard, and there should also be an appeal process for victims against decisions of the Parole Board, if they feel that that decision has been adverse to their interests. We think the Board requires more discretion to decide whether an offender can actually reappear on a parole proceeding, and they should have the right to defer a subsequent hearing for up to five years. It is most offensive to many people to find that someone appears before the board – frequently the notice that is going to happen is not great – and then when the case has been heard and the battle won for this time, that it simply pops up again a year or so later. We think the Board ought to have the right to say it is not going to deal with a person for another fixed period. We certainly think that when it comes to restorative justice programmes, if a victim’s family wishes to be involved, they should have the absolute right to be fully informed of the offender’s criminal history when they participate. We would include family group conferences in that scenario, so that people are entering into these discussions in full knowledge of the situation, and the not the partial picture only. As far as parole applications for non-violent offenders are concerned, we would look to a restorative approach involving the victim within those situations and being part of the overall hearing.
One of the things I was interested to hear from the Minister was the emphasis she placed on the wide range of functions that the Police now undertake. We seldom give the Police credit for the responsibilities we place upon them, the challenges we impose upon them, and our community’s general high expectations of what the Police will deliver. One area we need to do much more in, both in the Police and the Judiciary, is education (and training also) that they better understand the needs, the moods, the attitudes and the feelings of the victims of the crimes they prosecute. They need to be inside the victims’ heads in terms of the approach they take, and there is a strong case for improving training in that regard.
We are delighted to see the start of an effective victims’ support structure through the Victims’ Rights Act and the increasing prominence of Victim Support as an organisation. I say the start, because there is much, much more to do. We want to see that organisation funded to be an effective deliverer of services, including representation and advocacy for all victims, because that is what the Act says they have got to do. The challenge is to make it happen in practice, and that can only be achieved through adequate resourcing.
Overall, the whole issue that arises from this is a sense of frustration on the part of many good citizens that the law is not able to adequately deal with their problems, so therefore, as much out of fear as out of frustration, they take the law into their own hands. We have seen some examples in the last few years of where people have gone about defending themselves in what they regard as a legitimate expression of their rights, but they have ended up before the Court as potential criminals for the actions they have undertaken in self defence. We think there needs to be much greater education and emphasis about what is the law of self defence in New Zealand; what people can do to properly protect themselves, their families and their property; where the restrictions are; where the limitations are; and, where there might need to be areas for change. It is a debate that, whatever happens in terms of penal policy overall, is going to become more important. I do not think it is being focused on properly enough. At the moment, it only comes to attention when we get a situation where someone has done something to legitimately defend themselves against attack, as they see it, but they find themselves simply before the Court.
I have to tell you this. There is one best absolute thing we can do to aid the victims of crime in New Zealand. That is to make sure we have fewer criminals committing those crimes. The rest is all curative after the event. We have to do much more to stop the crime being committed. We have to look at a system that sees 75% of all prison inmates reconvicted for some sort of offence within two years of release. 37% offend sufficiently seriously to be back in prison within two years, and 51% are back in prison within five years. While those statistics continue, while we continue to have that high rate of recidivism, we are going to continue to face major issues with the way we approach and deal with the victims of their crimes. I say again those steps have to be taken, but the ultimate best step is reducing the level of crime in the first place.
Let me now talk about the broader issue of sentencing and prison related policy. There are many things we need to be taking here that are small steps forward to be taken first along the way of beating some of that recidivism I spoke of a moment ago, and are genuine efforts that can be made to rehabilitate offenders. Let me give you one specific example. One of the big stories we always hear about prison inmates is the level of drug and alcohol addiction amongst them – whether it fuels their crime (I am not saying it is in any way an excuse for their crime), or whether it is a problem that is brought upon them through their incarceration – it is nevertheless an issue, and we do not do enough to deal with it. We say drug and alcohol rehabilitation courses ought to be compulsory for all those inmates identified as having those problems. It seems to me to be somewhat of a no-brainer. We need to do much more (if we are serious about making good citizens out of these people) to promote literacy programmes for those who have literacy problems.
We need to increase the minimum non-parole period for violent offenders and for those committing sexual crimes. We would move, both in this area and the areas of child abuse and neglect, child sexual offences and child pornography, to introduce a higher level of minimum sentences for those responsible, so that we all know that this is where the tariff starts. The discretion applying to the Court is what it adds to that tariff, and we make no apology for that approach. We do not think – and I have made this point previously – that current sentences ought to be the default position. The Judges must have the right and must be encouraged to use cumulative sentences for those offences where they deem that to be necessary. How many times have we heard that so-and-so was sentenced to this number of years for that charge, this for that, and this for that, and you add up the number (and it sounds pretty high), with the sentences to be served concurrently, and you realise actually it is only going to be a period of about five years – maximum? It is an insult to people to say we are taking that tough stand against particularly violent and nasty crime. I think that one of the ways we move to eliminate that is to say that the strong presumption is that sentences will be cumulative, rather than concurrent. There may well be circumstances where a concurrent sentence is an appropriate response, but I think we have to send the signal loud and clear that we do not see that being the default position it is today.
Equally, multiple violent and sexual offenders simply should not be eligible for bail. When they appear next time around the record should speak so clearly that bail is not an option, and it is silly and despicable to find cases where had that practice been in place people’s lives would have been saved. It is as simple as that.
One of the problems we have in New Zealand at the moment is that on the face of it we imprison a large number of people. We have very rates of imprisonment, compared to other societies. But we also have this mismatch whereby the people we want to be keeping in prison for the longest possible period, we seem unable to do so, but we have a whole lot of other people coming into the system who probably do not need to be there. We would make better use of home detention, but we would automatically deny home detention to anyone convicted of a violent offence, a drug dealer, a rapist or child abuser. We would say that the lower level of offending, if you like, is where home detention ought to be available. The prison system is for the incarceration of those we want taken out of society. It seems to me to be somewhat absurd to say well, actually, we can take you out of society, but you can have home detention. It simply means they have got a much better office to work from.
Some years ago I went to Britain to study the British penal system. One of the things I learned there, which I do not think we have ever done effectively in this country, is that for people who have long periods of imprisonment ahead of them, particularly young people, the British system starts on day one saying you are going to be here for x number of years, so you have a couple of choices. You can either sit here and rot, which we do not think is particularly useful for you and is rather expensive for the state, or you can do something and we will start a tailored programme towards your possible eventual rehabilitation. At the moment, that is an area that is lacking very strongly in New Zealand and we want to see much more effort made in that regard.
Let me touch very quickly on a range of other issues.
Truancy – how many thousands of students are out of school at any one particular time? We do not have a national centralised data base that enables us to track student enrolment and attendance. We do not know, yet, often you hear when a case comes before the Court, that the person had given up going to school a long time ago. If we were really serious about getting tough on the causes of crime we would have a national database that tracks truants and means we can get to those who are skipping classes early on.
We need to do much more in the areas of reparations, electronic monitoring, community service (graffiti removal is one example0, as initial sentencing options for young people, low level offenders at their first point of entry into the system. It seems to me to take the presumption that these people are failures from day one only serves to ensure they will be. We need to do much more with those who are, if you like, preventable, to make sure they get that short, sharp initial shock that means that they do not end up becoming long-term offenders and risks to our society and the creators of the next round of victims. Our failure to address those early signs of impropriety like vandalism assuredly leads to a much greater level of offending, and a much greater level of violence at the later stage. We need to do more to equip schools to deal early on with drug abuse problems, bullying and anti-social problems.
One of the great things about New Zealand is its communities. I have been a very strong supporter over the years of organisations like Neighbourhood Support, and now the Community Patrols that are developing in many areas, that work alongside the Police to provide for safer communities. The problem is that in many cases their initiative has been seen as an excuse for the Police to withdraw. I deliberately use the words “work alongside”. I do not favour a vigilante approach to community policing, but I do see a very important place for Community Patrols, for Neighbourhood Support, and other groups to be there to work constructively with the Police. I would love to see the old concept of the neighbourhood cop re-established. I would love to see our community constables as people out in the community, working with the community, to keep that community safe. That gives rise to a whole lot of issues that I do not have time to talk about where they could actively be involved with the community.
It has been a privilege to address you this morning to give you some indication of UnitedFuture’s thinking.